build_call_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it validates schedule math and computes overlaps/gaps/duration, giving the agent a reasonable sense of what the tool does. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on validation failure (error vs partial output), whether schedule math correctness is enforced, or any side effects. With zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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?

A single, dense sentence that names the action (validate), the resource (schedule math), the output (structured call sheet), and the key computed values (overlaps, gaps, total duration). Zero wasted words, well front-loaded with the purpose.

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 is moderately complex with 9 parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey return value semantics on its own. It names the computed outputs (overlaps, gaps, duration), which is helpful. But it doesn't clarify the return format (structured call sheet — what fields?), whether it's a doc/table/JSON, or edge-case behavior like what happens with no events. The output schema absence means the description should convey more about what the call sheet contains.

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%, with 9 parameters (7 required), so the description must shoulder the explanatory burden. The description leaves all parameter semantics to the schema's property names and types. However, the schema itself is fairly self-documenting (project, shootDate, timezone, location, generalCall, estimatedWrap, events are all clear from their names). The events array has rich nested structure with defaults and types. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema field names convey, but the schema field names are largely self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('validate' and 'produce') with a clear resource (call sheet) and names its outputs: overlaps, gaps, and total production-day duration. It clearly distinguishes from read-only tools like get_sky_timeline or get_weather by emphasizing it validates and produces a structured document. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for comparison.

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 the usage context (production scheduling/validation) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. There's no alternative tool named, unlike high-scoring examples. Given the sibling list includes create_shooting_plan (which may overlap in scheduling workflow), some comparative guidance would help but is not present.

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