get_schedule

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond it: multiple meeting entries per section, grouping by course_code + section, and defaulting to the current term when term is omitted. It does not explain force_refresh, but that is more a parameter-semantics concern.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core resource and contents lead, followed by call conditions, then parameter semantics, then the grouping caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 readOnly annotation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs: what data is returned, how to request a term, and how to handle multi-meeting sections. The main missing piece is the semantics of force_refresh, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 must compensate. It does well for `term`, giving accepted formats and default behavior. However, `force_refresh` is never described, leaving its meaning and when to set it unclear. This is a significant gap for one of only two parameters.

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 identifies the resource as 'the student's course schedule' and enumerates its contents: meeting days, times, locations, instructors, and deadlines. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_grades or get_enrollment_status, even though get_schedule_ics is not explicitly mentioned.

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 explicitly states when to call: when the user asks about classes, class times, locations, instructors, or their day/week. It does not, however, provide explicit when-not-to-call guidance or direct the agent to an alternative like get_schedule_ics for calendar-file requests.

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