get_upcoming_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what happens with edge cases (e.g., days=0, negative days, or no events). Only the basic mapping is described.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args section. Every sentence adds value: it identifies the tool's purpose, parameter, and relationship to siblings. No wasted 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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description references sibling tools and the response shape. However, it lacks coverage of error conditions, default behavior for missing days (though specified), and any limitations.

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 description explains the 'days' parameter: 'Number of days to look ahead (default 7).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides type and default. However, it does not specify valid range or behavior for edge values.

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 it is a 'machine-readable variant of get_upcoming' and explains it covers the next *days* days, mirroring get_today_json. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_upcoming (human-readable) and get_today_json (today only).

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?

The description implies when to use: when machine-readable output is needed. It references get_upcoming and get_today_json as alternatives, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention specific conditions.

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