get_placeholder_heatmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the return structure is covered, but the description lacks behavioral clarity beyond parameter listing.

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 concise—one sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. Minor structure improvement could integrate parameters more naturally.

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 output schema exists, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not explain what a 'scheduling heatmap' represents (e.g., data axis, aggregation), and does not address scale implications. Sibling tools' existence raises expectation for more context.

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 description adds meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema: provides format for dates (YYYY-MM-DD), explains placeholder_id, and defines scale values ('daily' or 'weekly'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 'Get a scheduling heatmap for a Forecast placeholder', specifying the action ('Get') and the resource ('scheduling heatmap' for 'Forecast placeholder'), which distinguishes it from sibling heatmap tools for persons and projects.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_person_heatmap or get_project_heatmap. Usage context is implied by the tool name but not articulated, lacking when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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