tp_get_next_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the nearest future planned event' and does not describe edge cases (e.g., no future events), return format, sorting behavior, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'Get'. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It clearly conveys the tool's core purpose, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming overly long.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what is returned, how it behaves when no event exists, how it differs from related tools like tp_get_events or tp_get_focus_event, or any special handling for coaches. The schema covers the parameter, but the overall tool context is incomplete.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'athlete' parameter with a clear description, so the schema handles parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool gets the nearest future planned event, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like tp_get_events (which likely lists all events) and tp_get_focus_event, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tp_get_events or tp_get_focus_event. The description implies usage for retrieving the next upcoming event, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations.

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