sis_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose the resource (current-semester timetable) and the fields returned, which signals this is a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about permissions/login requirements, result ordering, or whether the result is empty when no schedule exists.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then parenthesizes the returned fields. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

The tool is a zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back; the field list (course/teacher/weekday/time/location) largely covers that gap. The remaining omission is how multiple entries are returned (a list vs. a single object) and whether the data is scoped per student.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds scope information, namely that results are limited to the current semester and that each entry carries course, teacher, weekday, time, and location.

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 gives a specific verb (取, fetch) and a specific resource (本学期 SIS 课表节次, this semester's SIS timetable entries), and it enumerates the returned fields (课程/教师/星期/时间/地点). That is enough to distinguish it from adjacent siblings such as sis_grades or sis_exams. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives. The phrase 本学期 (this semester) implies a scope, but the description never says what to do if you need another semester, and it does not distinguish this tool from look-alike siblings (program_courses, sis_registration, sis_statuses).

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