get_upcoming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the AppleScript API, which is a technical note but not behavioral. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Minimal disclosure for a simple getter.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the action, resource, and API. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. This is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify how 'Upcoming' differs from sibling tools like get_today or get_anytime, which could cause confusion. But given the naming convention and the fact that the output schema will clarify the return format, this is a minor gap. A 4 feels appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already states. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Upcoming tasks') with a specific API. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_today or get_anytime, but the name and resource are specific enough. Slight deduction for lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the resource name alone.

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