quick_practice

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool picks a sentence based on criteria, records, and assesses. It notes that focus/difficulty are optional and duration defaults to 15 max 120. It could disclose more about side effects (e.g., saving recordings), but overall it's transparent.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the combination, and the Args section lists parameters with options. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the main behavior and return value. It could mention what happens with invalid inputs, but given the simple nature, it's fairly complete.

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%, but the description provides full explanations for all three parameters: focus options, difficulty options, and duration default and max. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'picks a random practice sentence' and 'drills it immediately', using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'suggest_sentence' and 'practice' by combining both steps.

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 mentions the tool combines two steps, implying it's for when you want both suggestion and practice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you want to select a sentence manually) or provide alternatives.

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