iyke_timer_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: OS notification on fire, optional inbox delivery with 24h TTL, and mutual exclusivity of timing params. However, it omits edge cases like error handling, timer persistence, or whether cancellation is possible.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds unique information. No wasted 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 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., timer ID, success status). It also lacks error conditions or validation details. While behavioral aspects are covered, the missing return value info leaves a gap.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing mutual exclusivity of fire_at and delay_ms, clarifying 'one-shot', and elaborating on scope usage. It also explains the effect of agent_id beyond 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 'Schedule a one-shot timer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like iyke_timer_cancel and iyke_timer_list by emphasizing one-shot nature and scope options.

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 explains the timing options (fire_at vs delay_ms) and scope, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond 'active project or specified scope'.

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