sleep_timer_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by explicitly stating 'Read-only planner,' which clearly indicates that no queue or playback state is mutated, and by outlining the algorithm (select leading items, add a final pause action). There is a slight ambiguity about whether the 'pause call' is part of the returned plan or an executed action, but the word 'Plan' and the 'Read-only' qualifier resolve this reasonably well.

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 two tightly written sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the read-only qualifier earns its place in the second. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, the read-only nature, and the plan structure. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the actual return format or fields would improve completeness, and it never explicitly states that it relies on the current queue—but these are minor gaps.

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 'minutes' and 'response_format' fully documented including defaults, ranges, and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Plan a sleep timer'), the object ('leading queue items'), the selection criterion ('cumulative runtime best approximates a target duration'), and a final 'pause call'. By labeling itself a 'Read-only planner', it differentiates clearly from the sibling execution tool 'sleep_timer' without needing to open any schema.

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 clear contextual guidance by framing this as a planning operation and explicitly noting it is read-only, which signals that it should be used when only a plan is needed rather than an executed sleep timer. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., 'use sleep_timer to actually set the timer') or state when-not-to-use, so some inference is still required.

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