list_upcoming_deadlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the sorting ('soonest first'), a useful detail, but it omits critical behavior such as how the include_undated parameter affects results (defaults to true) and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. The description is too thin to fully inform an agent about what to expect when calling the tool.

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 sentence that is tightly worded with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and the key detail (time window) and keeps the sorting information concise. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains the filtering window but completely ignores the include_undated parameter and any potential results format. An agent would not know how to interpret the boolean parameter or what the response looks like, leaving the definition incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does loosely explain within_days via 'within the next N days' but fails to mention the default value of 7 or the semantics of include_undated. Since one parameter is entirely undefined in the description, the agent cannot understand the full behavior without external inference. This is insufficient for a tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 'Assignments due within the next N days, soonest first.' uses a specific verb ('list' implied by the tool name) and resource (assignments with upcoming deadlines), and clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_assignments by focusing on a time window and sorting order. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from a general assignment list.

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 implies usage context (when you need deadlines within a time range) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_assignments or get_assignment. It lacks any 'use X instead when...' or exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference. As a simple filtered list, the purpose is fairly obvious, but the absence of alternative routing makes it a 3.

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