agent-friend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it checks for due tasks, returns them, and handles rescheduling for recurring tasks and removal for one-shot tasks. This covers the core mutation and state-change aspects. However, it misses details like error handling, permissions, or rate limits, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, information-dense sentence: '[scheduler] Check for tasks that are due and return them. Recurring tasks are rescheduled; one-shot tasks are removed.' Every part adds value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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's complexity (involves state changes and task management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the core action and behavioral outcomes but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero structured metadata, it should provide more context about what 'return them' entails, such as the data structure or any limitations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description correctly does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's behavior. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check for tasks that are due and return them. Recurring tasks are rescheduled; one-shot tasks are removed.' It specifies the verb ('check for'), resource ('tasks that are due'), and outcome ('return them'), with additional behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scheduler_list_scheduled' or 'scheduler_schedule_task', which is why it's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings such as 'scheduler_list_scheduled' (which might list tasks without processing them) or 'scheduler_schedule_task' (which schedules new tasks). There is no explicit 'when' or 'when-not' information.

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