study_agenda

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world). Description adds real behavioral context: cached data, default six-day window, Europe/London fallback timezone, unknown-date count, and non-persistent overrides. That's meaningful disclosure beyond annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, all informative, front-loaded with the core behavior. No filler, though the mix of windowing, timezone, and override details in a single paragraph is dense.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: data sources, default window, timezone behavior, and override persistence. However pagination params (limit, offset) and the return structure remain entirely undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies date range semantics (YYYY-MM-DD, Europe/London default window) and mentions per-call language/timezone overrides, mapping to locale/display_timezone. But limit and offset are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource combination: unifying cached classes, assignment deadlines, and active local tasks into a paged agenda. Distinguishes from study_deadlines and study_tasks which likely cover single-source views, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Implies use for viewing a combined schedule in a time window but never states when to prefer this over study_deadlines, study_tasks, or study_status. No explicit when-not guidance.

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