plan_snake_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains snake-order mechanics, the reverse_snake option, and critically warns that likely_available is a distribution, not a prediction. This goes beyond the schema to set accurate expectations about output reliability.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes—purpose, usage, snake-order explanation, caveat, and parameter list. It is well-structured with an intro paragraph and an Args list, though the 'Work out' phrasing is slightly redundant with 'plan.'

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 description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how the snake logic works, what each parameter means, and the key caveat about likely_available. Since an output schema exists, there is no need to describe return values, making the description essentially complete for invocation.

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 Args section defines all six parameters with practical meanings (e.g., 'roster size',

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 opens with a concrete outcome ('which overall picks you own and who should be there') that clearly defines a draft-planning resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_draft_board or compare_draft_candidates by focusing on the user's own pick schedule and turn-by-turn targets.

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 a clear invocation condition: 'Use this when the user knows their draft slot and wants a plan.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to signal the intended scenario.

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