fiuba_upcoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: sort order ('soonest first'), a 14-day overdue window, exclusion of completed items, and timezone normalization to Buenos Aires local. It stops short of describing volume, pagination, or result limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the scope constraints. Every clause conveys actionable information (sort order, time window, exclusions, timezone) with no filler.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description does the work of explaining what comes back, in what order, with what timezone, and what is filtered out — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It is only marginally incomplete in not clarifying that results cannot be scoped or paginated.

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 the schema carries no semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details, though it also does not note that no filtering (e.g., by course or date) is possible.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: 'Upcoming deadlines and pending actions across all courses (assignment due dates, quizzes, etc.)'. The 'across all courses' framing distinguishes it from per-course siblings like fiuba_get_course and fiuba_assignments without needing to open any schema.

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?

It defines the inclusion window ('overdue ones from the last 14 days') and an explicit exclusion ('Already-completed items are not listed'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it versus fiuba_assignments or fiuba_grades, so routing must be inferred.

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