获取课程表

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns course name, teacher, classroom, session, and time, and explains the parameter behavior (week vs date, default current week). The verb '查询' implies a read-only operation, and no hidden side effects are suggested. However, it does not mention authorization or error conditions, but for a simple query tool, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then explains default behavior, parameter usage, and return fields. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, and return fields. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or data freshness, but these are typical for such a tool. The listing of return fields compensates for the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions including mutual exclusivity and defaults. The tool description adds little beyond reaffirming the schema, providing minimal additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool queries the course schedule ('查询北邮移动教务的课程表'), specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_campuses and get_classrooms, which are about locations, and get_today_overview, which is likely about today's overview. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains default behavior (current week) and how to use week or date parameters to specify a different week. While it does not explicitly exclude cases or contrast with siblings, the context from sibling tool names makes the use case clear. It provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, though not explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.