get_upcoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: results are in NYU local time and the tool scans announcements for deadlines outside Brightspace. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the open-world behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the scope and contents, the second adds timezone and external-scan behavior, and the third gives the usage directive. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool with no output schema and five optional parameters, the description does well by covering the main return categories and the external-announcement scan behavior. It could mention output ordering or how the optional parameters shape results, but the schema covers parameter details and the description gives enough for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 description coverage is 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description lightly echoes the course parameter with 'or one course' and the scanAnnouncements behavior with 'scans recent announcements', but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema for parameters like days, pastDays, or includeDone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it aggregates upcoming deadlines across current courses or a single course, and explicitly enumerates the item types returned (assignments with submission status, quizzes, readings with completion status, instructor calendar events). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_assignments and get_quizzes by positioning itself as the starting point for 'what's due'.

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 clearly says to 'Start here for what's due', giving the agent a strong signal about when this aggregate tool is appropriate. It also notes that it scans announcements for external deadlines, which helps distinguish it from direct course-content tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings like get_assignments or get_announcements for narrower queries.

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