calculate_spaced_repetition

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 mentions the use of a well-known algorithm (SM-2), implying a deterministic calculation without side effects, but does not explicitly state idempotency, destructive potential, or other behavioral traits. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise but could benefit from slight expansion to cover parameter roles. However, it is adequately sized for a simple calculation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks details on algorithm assumptions, edge cases, or parameter validation, which may be needed given the tool's mathematical nature. The description is minimally complete for a known algorithm but not fully self-contained.

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 schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters (grade_1_5, repetition_count, previous_ease_factor, previous_interval_days). The algorithm name provides indirect context that these are standard SM-2 inputs, but the description fails to add explicit meaning or constraints beyond the schema's titles.

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 calculates the next optimal review date using the standardized SM-2 algorithm. It specifies a unique verb ('calculates'), resource ('next optimal review date'), and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools which deal with assessment and syllabus generation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual clues. Without explicit usage context, an AI agent may not understand the appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool.

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