List Student Appointments

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the pagination contract ('Use the returned cursor for another page') and listing returned fields. However, it does not elaborate on what 'attendance settings' means or what 'unchanged' implies behaviorally, so the added context is moderate.

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—two sentences that front-load the primary action and include a helpful pagination hint. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with four parameters, yet the description does not cover the semantics of direction (past/future) or showPastAppointments. An agent cannot fully determine how to retrieve past vs. future appointments, which is likely a common use case for this tool. The lack of an output schema makes this omission more critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'cursor' usage and provides no information about 'limit', 'direction', or 'showPastAppointments'. The absence of any explanation for the direction parameter (initial/past/future) is a major gap that the description fails to fill.

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 main action: returning one page of the student's agenda, and lists the fields included (times, locations, organizers, etc.). It is somewhat specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_course_appointments, which could be confused for a similar listing operation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions prerequisites nor suggests calling this tool for student-specific appointments versus course appointments. The only usage hint is implicit from the tool name, which is not enough for an agent to decide between similar tools.

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