get_timetable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it gets a timetable but doesn't reveal any constraints like authentication requirements, date format expectations, or potential errors for invalid target types. For a read operation, this is a notable gap.

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 two sentences, one of which is a compact enum listing for target_type. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter explanations.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on required parameters, date formatting, and how to interpret the response, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate.

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%, and the description only lists the possible values for 'target_type' but does not explain 'target_id', 'date_str', or 'subdomain' beyond their names. An agent is left guessing what ID format is expected or how to specify the date, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('timetable') with clear target types (teacher, student, class, classroom), which distinguishes it from related tools like get_my_timetable or get_student_timetable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when to use it (when you need a timetable for a specific target on a date) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of timetable-related siblings, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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