scheduling_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about safety, permissions, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only (only the noun phrase implies a read). An output schema exists, which relieves it of explaining return values, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is placed after the resource. It is efficient, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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 3 parameters, a required-parameter pair, and overlapping siblings, the definition is too thin: it omits read/write direction, usage boundaries versus 'timetable', and semantics for both required IDs. The existing output schema covers return values, but that alone does not make the definition complete.

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 and it only partly does: it clarifies the format of the optional 'week' parameter ('YYYY-WW'), which the schema does not. The two required parameters, 'child_id' and 'organizational_unit_id', receive no semantic explanation in either place, leaving required inputs under-specified.

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 names the resource clearly and even parenthesizes its contents ('prøver, aktiviteter') plus the scope key ('for en ISO-uke'). However there is no verb, so it is ambiguous whether this reads or writes schedule events, and it gives no signal to distinguish it from the overlapping sibling 'timetable'. Purpose is inferable but not sharply differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, despite 'timetable' and 'absences' being plausible competing tools for calendar-like data. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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