program_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose genuine context the agent could not otherwise infer: the data comes from a public page on the main site and is in Chinese, implying no authentication and a fixed language. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are cached or how fresh they are, or how large the response can get for a full 8-major default.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource name and followed by the three content components, with the provenance note in parentheses. No filler, though the parenthetical source/language note is dense and would read better separated.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating what is returned (credit blocks, course table, prerequisites), which is adequate for a two-parameter read tool. What is missing is any disambiguation against the other program_* tools and any sense of response shape or size, which matters in a catalog of 60+ siblings.

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 100%: both parameters are documented, including the substring-matching behavior of 'major' and its default of all 8 majors, plus what 'detail' toggles. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource and its contents: a major's training plan, organized by credit block, with credit requirements, a course table, and prerequisites. That is far more informative than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from the closely-named siblings program_curriculum, program_courses, or program_overview, which plausibly return overlapping content.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the several program_* siblings. The only usage signal is implicit in the content description, and the useful default ('缺省返回全部 8 个专业') lives in the schema rather than the description.

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