get_upcoming_courses_and_exams

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the basic query intent—no return format, no data source, no auth or rate-limit notes. It is a minimal read-only query with essentially no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the purpose and scope, making it appropriately sized for a one-parameter query tool.

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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic resource types returned (courses, exams, schedule). However, it omits whether today is included, how the day window is bounded, and any return format detail, leaving minor gaps for the agent.

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 single parameter 'days' already has 100% schema description coverage ('查询天数，默认 7 天'). The description's phrase '未来 N 天' restates the day-window concept without adding syntax, boundary behavior, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource in Chinese: '获取' (get) and '未来 N 天的杭电课程、考试和日程安排' (future N days of HDU courses, exams, and schedule). It implicitly distinguishes itself from 'get_today_courses_and_exams' by scoping to '未来 N 天' rather than today, but it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 only states what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and does not point to alternatives like 'get_today_courses_and_exams' or 'search_courses_and_exams'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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