get_periods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It clearly states it reads schedule data, which is non-destructive, and notes reliance on 'logged-in data' indicating the need for prior authentication. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (e.g., caching) or clarify whether it returns the schedule for the current day only or a specific date range. Given the lack of annotations, more detail on the output format or behavior would be beneficial.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and to the point with no redundant information. Perfectly sized for the task.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits specifics like whether the schedule is for the current day or a chosen date, and it does not mention return structure or any caveats about authentication. For a tool with low complexityholistic, the completeness is adequate but not stellar.

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 should compensate. It explains that the tool uses logged-in data, implying the subdomain parameter is optional or used for context. However, it does not explicitly explain what 'subdomain' means or how it affects the request于点. The description provides some context, but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: to retrieve the bell schedule (periods with start/end times) from the logged-in data. This is specific enough to distinguish it from related tools like get_my_timetable or get_timetable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from potential alternatives like get_timetable_range, which might also return schedule information, so it loses one point.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other schedule-related tools. It explains that it gets the schedule from logged-in data, which implies it must be used after login, but it does not explicitly state that a login is required or that this tool is the go-to for the current user's schedule. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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