list_planner_items

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

The description discloses basic behavioral traits: pagination via page and items_per_page parameters, and that it operates for the authenticated user. However, it lacks details on sort order, date range inclusivity, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 concise and efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list. No unnecessary information or repetition is present.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description only minimally addresses return type (PaginatedResponse[PlannerItem]) without detailing the fields of PlannerItem. This is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves the agent uninformed about the response structure, affecting completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing clear explanations for all five parameters, including format expectations (ISO 8601 for dates) and an example for context_codes. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic name 'example' of context_codes enhances understanding.

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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'planner items', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not elaborate on what planner items are, which could help differentiate from other list tools like list_calendar_events or list_assignments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many list functions for courses, assignments, etc., but the description does not explain the context for planner items or when this tool is preferred.

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