get_planned_works

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read and 'upcoming' gives a useful temporal scope, but there is no disclosure of return shape, freshness of data, authentication needs, or pagination behavior for what is presumably a large list of works.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity is partly the cause of the transparency gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only documentation. It covers the bare purpose adequately for a trivial no-arg read, but leaves the agent without any indication of what the response contains or how it differs from sibling disruption tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool; no syntax or format details are needed.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (upcoming planned engineering works) with a scoping qualifier (TfL lines). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, get_disruptions, which an agent could easily confuse with planned works.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_disruptions or get_line_status, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer the intended use entirely from the one-line purpose.

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