upc_timetable_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing 'no write' merely restates structured data. The description adds nothing beyond annotations — no note on data freshness, whether the teaching week reflects a holiday break, or what the response contains.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The '; no write' clause is the only wasted wording because it duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

This is a simple, no-argument read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, so expectations are largely set. However, nothing describes the return shape — term identifiers, date boundaries, or the teaching-week number — which matters since no output schema exists to compensate.

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?

There is a single parameter, session_ref, fixed by const to 'self' with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions it, but the parameter is effectively a no-op constant, so the schema alone is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 (Read) and two concrete resources: the school's term list and the current teaching week. An agent can distinguish it from upc_timetable_week, which returns a weekly schedule rather than the term/week reference data. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a context-lookup call to resolve terms or the active week before calling upc_timetable_week or upc_timetable_range. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing statement.

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