get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'backward compatibility,' hinting at legacy behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no schedule exists for the date. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get school schedule for a specific date') and adds a useful note on backward compatibility. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or return format, which are important for a tool interacting with school data. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, with the parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema as optional with a default to today in YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying date specificity without providing additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('school schedule'), specifying it's for a specific date. It distinguishes from siblings like get_calendar_events by focusing on school schedules rather than general calendar events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_required_courses, which might be related.

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 implies usage for retrieving school schedules on specific dates, with the backward compatibility note suggesting it might be a legacy endpoint. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_calendar_events or get_required_courses, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication.

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