Auth-only. Returns a personalized N-day study plan (default 7, range 3–7) chosen from one of four focus modes (weak-topic-drill / streak-recovery / new-words / review-mastery) based on the user's recent trends. Inline only the first 3 days; full plan persists when the user clicks the Vocab Voyage start link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| horizon_days | No | Plan length in days (3–7, default 7). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's non-destructive. The description adds that it is auth-only, returns a plan based on trends, and inlines only the first 3 days with full plan persisting on click. No contradictions with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Auth-only', no fluff. Every phrase earns its place, covering authentication, personalization, duration, modes, and UI behavior.
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?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers authentication, plan characteristics, and display behavior. It lacks details on error handling or return structure, but those are not critical for this read-only tool with simple inputs.
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% with a single parameter 'horizon_days' described in schema. The description adds value by specifying default (7) and valid range (3–7), which is not in the schema description.
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 clearly states it returns a personalized study plan with specific focus modes and duration range. It differentiates from generic plan tools by mentioning 'weak-topic-drill / streak-recovery / new-words / review-mastery' modes, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'study_plan_preview'.
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?
It specifies 'Auth-only' and describes when to use (personalized plan based on trends). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like 'study_plan_preview' or 'get_recommended_next_action'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. A few pairs like study_plan_preview vs get_study_plan_recommendation or get_definition vs explain_word_in_context have subtle overlaps, but descriptions effectively differentiate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are longer but follow the same structure. No mixing of conventions, though the variety of verbs is high.
31 tools is on the high side for a vocabulary server. The scope is broad (definition, quizzes, games, progress, parent/tutor features), but many tools are specific, making the set feel heavy. It earns its count but could be trimmed.
The tool surface covers most user needs: learning, testing, progress tracking, parental involvement, and support. Minor gaps like class management or deletion operations exist, but core vocabulary workflows are complete.