list_upcoming_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond labeling events as 'actionable' (which is more about purpose than behavior). It doesn't mention filtering rules, ordering, or any side effects, but given the annotations are comprehensive, a 3 is appropriate—it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main verbs and object. While it is very minimal, it achieves conciseness without wasted words. It could potentially be more structured but remains acceptable in length.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the meaning of 'actionable' events, the role of the parameters, or how the tool behaves. For an agent to use it correctly, it needs to understand what distinguishes these events from others and how days, limit, and course_ids influence results. The description only gives a high-level purpose, leaving the tool inadequately specified for correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning the schema only provides types and defaults without explanations. The description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (days, limit, course_ids). Agents have no semantic understanding of what these parameters control or how to use them, making this a critical gap.

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 'Lista próximos eventos accionables del calendario del Campus' clearly specifies the action (list), the resource (upcoming events from the Campus calendar), and a qualifier (actionable) that differentiates it from the sibling list_calendar_events. It is a specific verb+resource statement, not a tautology, and provides distinct meaning.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_calendar_events or any condition that would select this tool, such as needing only actionable events. Agents are left to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient.

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