get_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that system events are hidden by default (include_system parameter), pagination via limit/offset, and that school is only needed for multi-school accounts. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or rate limits, but the verb 'Get' implies it.

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 well-structured with a brief intro followed by bullet-pointed Args and Returns. It is concise without being terse, though some parameter descriptions could be slightly shortened. Front-loading the purpose aids quick understanding.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no required) and no output schema provided, the description covers all input parameters thoroughly. It explains the return as 'JSON array of lean timeline events' but lacks details on structure or potential errors. Sibling tools list helps context, but differentiation could be stronger.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained with purpose, default values, and constraints (e.g., category and event_type are mutually exclusive, date format YYYY-MM-DD). This adds immense value beyond the schema titles.

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 'Get the visible timeline (recent messages, assignments, grades)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities (e.g., get_homework, get_assignments) by describing an aggregated view.

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 like get_homework or get_grades. It does not discuss trade-offs or scenarios where a more specific tool would be appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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