Make a spaced repetition schedule

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

The annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context: reviews expand from the first study date and dates on or after the exam are skipped. It also clarifies that dates may be plain text, which is relevant to the openWorldHint annotation.

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 short and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool produces before giving the alternative and date-format guidance. The example prompt is compact and helps clarify intended usage without wasting space.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the returned schedule as every review date at expanding intervals with post-exam dates skipped. Combined with thorough parameter descriptions and read-only annotations, it is nearly complete, though the exact return shape is not specified.

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%, so the schema already documents topic, exam_date, intervals_days, and first_study_date. The description reinforces exam skipping and date formats but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: making a spaced repetition schedule for a topic, with expanding review intervals and exam-date skipping. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from next_review_dates, which covers only the next review date.

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 gives a clear usage condition by saying to use next_review_dates when only the next review date is wanted, implying this tool is for the full schedule. It does not address all sibling tools such as spaced_repetition_dates or make_study_plan, but the main alternative is covered.

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