plms_weekly_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds a small amount of structural context (notices are surfaced separately and scoped to affected courses), but says nothing about ordering, limits, or how the aggregation behaves when a course has no deadlines.

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?

Two short sentences with the core aggregation front-loaded and no filler. The trailing sentence 'Include notices separately for affected courses' is slightly ambiguous in phrasing but does convey output structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description does cover the three content blocks. What is missing is how the blocks relate to the undocumented `days` window and what 'affected courses' means, which matters for a multi-source aggregation tool.

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 single `days` parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must carry it, and 'near-term deadlines' only loosely implies a look-ahead window without naming the parameter or its default of 7. An agent can guess, but the coupling between `days` and the deadline set is never stated.

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 ('Get') and three concrete resources (enrolled courses, near-term deadlines, notices) aggregated into a 'school-life briefing'. This implicitly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like plms_upcoming_deadlines or plms_list_courses, though it never names an alternative 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: the word 'briefing' plus 'together' suggests a consolidated periodic summary, and a 7-day default window reinforces a weekly cadence. There is no statement of when to pick this over plms_upcoming_deadlines or plms_list_notices, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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