İTÜ Announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of which institutional sources are aggregated, but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or how results are ordered or paged.

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 zero filler; the resource and its sources come first. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the parameter gap rather than resolving it.

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 values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover the safety story. The remaining gap is that three undocumented parameters and the absence of any sibling differentiation leave an agent under-equipped to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the 'sources' parameter by naming the feeds, but 'limit' and 'query' (the filtering and result-count controls) are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Aggregate') and resource ('official announcements') and enumerates the source feeds (İTÜ, ÖDEK, İKM, SKS, Erasmus), so the agent knows exactly what content it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from announcement-bearing siblings like get_dashboard_announcements or get_course_announcements, leaving the scope boundary implicit.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never references alternatives, even though several sibling tools also surface announcements (get_dashboard_announcements, get_course_announcements, get_updates). The agent must infer that this is the institutional/central feed rather than a course- or dashboard-scoped one.

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