今日空教室与课表联合查询

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently spells out the six specific data items returned and the optional campus_id parameter with default behavior. It does not mention error cases, rate limits, or data freshness guarantees, but for an overview tool with one optional parameter, these omissions are minor.

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 is extremely concise, using a single sentence with a colon-separated list to enumerate the return fields, followed by three example queries. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure front-loads the core functionality before the examples. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 low parameter count (1, optional), full schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It could be more complete by specifying the date range (e.g., always today only) and the format of returned items (e.g., list vs. object), but for an overview tool, the behavioral transparency is strong.

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% (one parameter fully described inline), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default value derivation ('默认取环境变量 BUPT_CAMPUS_ID') and listing the campus names ('01=西土城，04=沙河'), which the schema alone does not provide. This goes beyond a simple repeat of the schema.

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 returns a comprehensive overview including date, week, course list, occupied class periods, free classrooms per period, current free classrooms, and all-day free classrooms. It then lists example queries it can answer, which precisely define the tool's scope and resource. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_classrooms (which likely retrieves classroom information without temporal context) and get_schedule (which probably returns course schedules without classroom availability).

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 implicitly communicates usage by listing the exact question types it answers, such as 'what classes are today' and 'which classrooms are free now'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for other scenarios. Given the sibling tools, it would be helpful to clarify, for instance, 'for a full schedule without free room info, use get_schedule'.

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