plan_work_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the scheduling algorithm ('earliest window where no day is prohibited'), the dependency handling, and what the return value contains (scheduled works and unplaced works, each with an explicit reason). It does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, but the tool's planning nature and return-focused wording make non-mutation reasonably clear.

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 four sentences and every sentence carries useful information: purpose, algorithm, return value, and usage guidance. It is not bloated, though the algorithm and return-value sentences could potentially be tightened without losing meaning.

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 tool with a relatively complex input (multiple works, dependencies, weather windows) and an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: feasibility, dependency ordering, earliest placement, and the split between scheduled and unscheduled works with reasons. It does not mention input limits or detailed weather constraint logic, but those are already present in the schema and would not affect tool selection.

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 description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description does not directly explain the `request` parameter structure. However, it does reference the core semantic pieces: 'several construction works', 'weather forecast', and 'dependencies', which map to `works`, `forecast`, and `depends_on`. The nested schema definitions are rich, so the description adds modest context without fully compensating for the top-level coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Produce a feasible day-by-day schedule for several construction works across a weather forecast' while also naming the key constraint ('honouring declared dependencies'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling validate_work_window by framing it as the multi-work planning alternative, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool instead of an alternative: 'Use this instead of repeated validate_work_window calls when planning more than one work.' This provides a clear condition and names the sibling tool it replaces, giving the agent actionable selection guidance.

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