get_homework

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'extracts homework from the timeline/notification history' and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects) or mention any constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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: a two-sentence overview followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary details and is easy to scan. Minor improvement could be to front-load the primary purpose more prominently.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, and return format. It mentions example fields (title, subject, due_date), which aids interpretation. However, it could clarify the relationship to the output schema and potential error conditions.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: since_days (default 30, range), status (filter values 'active', 'done', or ''), and school (only needed for multiple schools). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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's purpose: 'Get homework assignments from the last N days' and specifies the data source ('timeline/notification history'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_assignments', which may cause confusion about which to use for homework versus general assignments.

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 like 'get_assignments' or 'get_timeline'. The description lacks context about preconditions, such as needing to be logged in, or when filtering by 'status' or 'school' is appropriate.

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