whats_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a read operation ('what appeared or changed') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or what the response looks like. It only mentions parameters and defaults, lacking transparency about side effects or output format.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains each parameter without unnecessary detail. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains (e.g., a list of events with fields). However, for a relatively simple feed tool, it is sufficient to call correctly, so this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema. It explains 'since' accepts ISO dates, relative spans like '3d'/'12h', or 'yesterday', with a default of 7 days; 'kinds' is a comma-separated filter with an example; 'limit' is a max event count. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensation is valuable, though a full list of allowed 'kinds' values would make it even stronger.

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 tool's purpose: 'What appeared or changed on MyCourseVille recently.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from listing tools like list_assignments or list_grades, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The intent is immediately understandable.

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 purpose implies usage: if an agent needs recent activity, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of scenarios where other tools would be preferred. The usage is implied but not directly stated.

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