List To-Dos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns the workload 'unchanged' and explicitly lists the status categories, which gives useful behavioral context about the output scope without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the primary action and the second adds the planning context. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits any explanation of the timePeriod default or the effect of the boolean toggles, and provides no details on the return structure or possible pagination. An agent cannot fully infer correct usage from this definition alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. However, it does not explain what timePeriod means or how the boolean flags (showLocked, showCompleted, etc.) control the output. The status categories are mentioned, but there's no mapping to the parameters, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('the student's Fuxam content-block workload and current statuses'), and names the concrete status categories (outstanding, in-progress, completed, reviewed, locked). This is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like list_courses or get_study_plan.

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?

It implies the tool is for planning workload, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_study_plan or list_course_deadlines) or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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