get_today

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results include cancellations, substitutions, room changes, and teacher changes, which signals the data is change-annotated rather than a raw timetable. It does not say whether this is purely read-only, whether it needs authentication, or how it relates to get_changes, which also appears to surface changes.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence largely restates 'all details' by enumerating change types, which is mild redundancy but still adds specificity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description is sufficient for a no-argument read tool, though clarifying its relationship to get_timetable and get_changes would remove the remaining ambiguity.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter definition.

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 (fetch) and resource (today's schedule) with a clear temporal scope that an agent can distinguish from get_tomorrow or get_timetable. It does not, however, explicitly articulate how it differs from similar siblings such as get_timetable or get_changes.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the word 'today', but the description never states when to prefer this over get_timetable, get_changes, or get_tomorrow. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving routing to inference.

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