sis_exams

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. The verb 取 (fetch) signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies what data comes back, but it says nothing about whether results are personal-only, what happens outside exam periods (empty result vs error), or any access constraints.

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 with the scope (current semester) front-loaded and the returned fields grouped in parentheses. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by listing the fields an agent will receive, which lets the agent decide whether the tool answers a user's question. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no exams scheduled, past semesters) rather than core capability.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the scope is fixed to the current semester rather than user-specified.

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 verb and resource — fetch current-semester exam arrangements — and enumerates the returned fields (date/time/type/room/seat). That distinguishes it in practice from siblings like sis_schedule (class timetable) or sis_grades, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for exam scheduling rather than course scheduling or grade lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of sibling tools, and no note about prerequisites such as whether exams must already be published.

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