moodle_upcoming

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little. It never defines what 'upcoming' means (a time window, how far ahead, timezone), whether results are ordered chronologically, whether past-due items are included, or what permission/login state is required. The only behavioral detail is the default limit, which merely restates the 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?

The definition is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, with the parameter note confined to a compact Args block. The Python-docstring formatting is slightly awkward for a tool description but wastes no words.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the basics but omits the one thing that most affects correct use: what window 'upcoming' covers and what each returned event contains. It is adequate to invoke but not fully informative about behavior.

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 explain the single parameter, and it does: 'limit: maximum number of events (default 30)' clarifies that limit counts events rather than days and confirms the default. It does not explain whether the cap silently truncates results or interacts with any time window, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List upcoming calendar events and deadlines'. It is immediately clear what the tool returns, and no sibling tool appears to cover calendar events, so an agent can select it without ambiguity. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not explicitly frame itself against related tools like moodle_get_assignment or moodle_list_assignments, which also surface due dates.

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 implied by the phrase 'upcoming calendar events and deadlines' - an agent can infer this is the tool for a forward-looking view of pending work. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus moodle_list_assignments or moodle_get_grades, and no stated prerequisites such as authentication via moodle_login.

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