get_today_courses_and_exams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool aggregates three categories (courses, exams, schedule) but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, data source, timezone/semester handling, or return format for a no-argument query tool.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates exactly what is returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema query the description is nearly complete — it conveys the resource and the time scope. It still omits the environmental assumptions (whose schedule, which timezone, how the day boundary is determined) that an agent would need to interpret 'today' correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax for the description to supply. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds only the implicit 'today' scope.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('获取' = get, '课程、考试和日程安排' = courses, exams and schedule) scoped to 'today', which distinguishes it from the 'upcoming' sibling. However it never names the siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the difference from the temporal qualifier alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_upcoming_courses_and_exams or search_courses_and_exams. The word 'today' implicitly contrasts with 'upcoming', but the agent receives no stated rule for choosing between them.

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