get_next_ringing_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature clear via 'Get' and specifies the output contents, plus the ISO/default-now behavior. However, it omits timezone handling, auth expectations, return shape, and edge cases like no next ringing.

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 entire description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main action and output. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple lookup tool this is minimally adequate, but there are notable gaps: subdomain is not explained, the exact return format is absent, and no output schema or annotations exist to fill those holes. An agent would still have to guess about timezone and failure behavior.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for date_time_str by specifying ISO format and default-now behavior, but it completely ignores the subdomain parameter, leaving its role and possible values unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('next ringing') plus the returned fields ('type (break/lesson) and time'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_periods or get_timetable.

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 phrase 'for a given datetime (ISO, default now)' implies the main use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With many get_* siblings, a direct comparison would help.

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