s21_get_pending_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-oriented ('obtiene'), covers all active subjects, returns items chronologically, and includes days remaining. It does not mention authentication or output format, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and object first, followed by scope and ordering details. There is no filler or repetition. The only minor concern is the undefined 'TPs' acronym, but it does not significantly hurt clarity.

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 no-parameter listing tool, the description states the data scope, ordering, and the days-remaining feature, which is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit output structure and the absence of guidance for choosing it over similar siblings.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters requiring further explanation. The description still adds semantic context about what the returned agenda includes, which is useful beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'Obtiene' and the resource: an agenda of deliveries, TPs, and pending tasks across all active subjects, ordered chronologically with days remaining. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like s21_get_assignments or s21_get_upcoming_events.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it is useful for viewing pending academic work, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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