moodle_get_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose itself, such as whether events are course-specific, user-specific, or include all calendars. It does not contradict annotations, but also adds little extra value.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with zero waste.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important contextual details such as the scope of events (e.g., all courses, user-specific, site-wide) or the return format. Since there is no output schema, such details would be valuable for complete understanding.

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 only parameter information in the description is 'month 是 1-12', which merely repeats the schema's min/max constraints. The description does not explain the semantics of 'year' or what constitutes a calendar event, failing to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 action ('取' = get), the resource ('日历事件' = calendar events), and the scope ('某月' = specific month). This specific phrasing distinguishes it from related tools like moodle_get_upcoming, which targets upcoming events rather than a chosen month.

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 use when you need calendar events for a given month. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer moodle_get_upcoming or how to handle different date ranges. The context is clear but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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