Check Course Conflicts

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

No annotations provided; the description discloses it uses the public course schedule to look up session day/time/room. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but the output schema and context suggest a non-destructive operation. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 core purpose. No redundant information.

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?

Given unannotated parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the main functionality but omits details on two optional parameters and does not clarify the return format beyond naming session attributes. Could be more complete.

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 0%. The description explains the 'crns' parameter via 'by CRN', but does not mention 'program_type' or 'department_code', leaving their purpose unclear. Insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool checks for schedule time conflicts between courses using CRN and sources from the public course schedule. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_public_course_schedule by focusing on conflict detection.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manually checking schedule via get_public_course_schedule). The description implies usage but provides no exclusions or context.

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