schedule_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads and parses a file, computes CPM-derived values (planned finish as computed by the CPM engine), and can emit errors listing projects when `project` is omitted. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but well-organized: the main summary content is front-loaded, followed by the usage directive and parameter clarification. It is longer than the typical one-liner, but every clause adds information about what the tool returns or how to invoke it correctly. Slight redundancy in listing file formats twice could be trimmed, but it remains 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?

For a read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description covers the input formats, the scope of the summary, the optional parameter, and the error behavior. It doesn't specify the exact output structure, but given the tool's purpose as a high-level overview and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does: `path` is implied as the schedule file to open, and `project` is explicitly defined as 'short name or id, needed only when the file holds several projects.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Open... and summarize it') and a precise resource (schedule files with enumerated formats), then enumerates the exact summary contents. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_activities or run_cpm by being the first-stop overview tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this first on any new file,' which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the `project` parameter's conditional necessity and what happens when it's missing (the error lists projects), effectively guiding the agent on when to supply it.

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