suggest_review_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the plan is generated from mastery data and recency and prioritizes weak or long-unreviewed concepts, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or dependencies on student data. For a suggestion tool the risk is moderate, but the description does not fully characterize behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Generate') and clearly states the resource and criteria. No redundant or filler content exists.

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 only two parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description conveys the core function and prioritization logic. However, it does not mention expected output format, potential limitations, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_review_due, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent making invocation decisions.

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 100%, with both parameters (studentId, maxTopics) already described. The description adds context about mastery data and recency but does not elaborate on how maxTopics affects the plan or the expected format of studentId. It does not compensate beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 generates a spaced-repetition review plan using mastery data and recency, with prioritization of weak and long-unreviewed concepts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_due, which likely lists due items rather than generating a prioritized plan.

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 implies the tool is used when a review plan is needed, and mentions data sources (mastery data, recency) and prioritization criteria, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_review_due or get_daily_briefing. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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