get_exams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that results are scoped to '本人' (the authenticated user) — but says nothing about pagination or freshness, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 short sentences, both carrying load, with the purpose front-loaded before the parameter note. The cross-reference to get_timetable is efficient but leaves the definition non-self-contained.

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 restated. However, for a zero-required-parameter tool whose parameters are 0% documented, the only guidance is an indirect pointer to a sibling, leaving the invocation semantics partially unresolved.

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%, so term and year carry no meaning anywhere except the phrase '参数同 get_timetable', which forces the agent to open another tool's schema. The description does not explain accepted values, formats, or what happens when they are omitted (default null).

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 and resource (查询本人考试安排) and enumerates what is returned (时间、地点、座位号), which cleanly separates it from get_timetable. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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 contrast with get_timetable is implied by the resource name (exams vs timetable) and the parameter deferral, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus get_timetable or other siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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