get_timetable

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

Annotations only declare safety traits (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description surfaces the real behavioral burden: the tool requires an authenticated session, can return a NOT_AUTHENTICATED sentinel, and defines the full retry/login choreography plus credential sourcing. This is meaningful context an agent cannot derive from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the authentication handling, which is the right priority order. It is somewhat dense and reads as a run-on chain of imperatives ('get_captcha then login then retry this tool'), but every clause carries actionable information.

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, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, and it fully covers the auth lifecycle and the sole optional parameter's default. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and recover from the primary failure mode.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents semesterId, its example format, and the omit-for-current-default behavior. The description only restates 'semesterId is optional; omit for current semester,' adding no syntax or semantic value beyond the structured field, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('class timetable/schedule') and enumerates the payload contents (courses, slots, venues, faculty, credits). This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_exam_schedule, get_today_classes, and get_calendar, which an agent could otherwise confuse with a general timetable call.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: omit semesterId for the current semester, and the exact recovery sequence (get_captcha -> login -> retry) when NOT_AUTHENTICATED appears, including the env-var fallback and when to prompt the user. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling schedule tools such as get_today_classes, so it stops short of a 5.

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