Hackathon Plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it does not code, forces coverage of jury weights, and returns a specific structure (day-by-day tasks mapped to categories). This is transparent behavior, though it omits details like error handling or side effects. For a plan generator, this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main function, then adding constraints and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The structure is logical and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output structure well (day-by-day tasks mapped to Technical/Innovation/Impact/Design/Completion plus video script slot). It also clarifies it does not code. It does not mention prerequisites like track validity, but this is minor given the simplicity and sibling context. Overall complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does so clearly: 'input track+idea' and the example uses 'track1' and a specific idea string. Both parameters are fully explained with a concrete example, adding 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's function: input track+idea returns a 48h task breakdown and checklist. It specifies the resource and action, and differentiates from siblings by noting it does NOT code and focuses on jury weights. The example further clarifies the output.

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 when to use this tool (to generate a plan from track and idea) and gives an example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but the 'does NOT code' note and focus on jury weights provide context. Clear but not fully explicit.

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