get_timetable

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description earns credit for adding the authentication prerequisite, which is operational context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. The 'read-only' restatement is redundant but harmless, and no return shape or empty-result behavior is described.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the prerequisite. No filler and no repetition beyond the minor 'read-only' echo of the annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies what is missing: auth requirement and scope. It stops short of describing what a timetable entry contains, which would help an agent interpret the result without an output schema.

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 100% and the single `week` parameter already documents 'True zeigt die ganze Kalenderwoche; False nur den heutigen Tag.' The description's 'heute oder die ganze Kalenderwoche' only restates that semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Liest den persönlichen HISinOne-Stundenplan') with an explicit scope ('für heute oder die ganze Kalenderwoche'). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_grades or search_courses, though the description never names them to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: it requires an authenticated session from `hisinone login` or HISINONE_USER/HISINONE_PASSWORD in the environment, and states the two usage modes (today vs. full week). It offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, which is the only shortfall.

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