skylight_generate_activity_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'async', indicating the operation is not immediate. However, it does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., how to retrieve drafts), side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema and moderate parameter count (7), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what AI generation entails, what types of activities are produced, or how the draft events are stored or retrieved. More context is needed for a generative tool.

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 (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond 'location and time range,' which overlaps with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate AI activity/event ideas for a location and time range (creates draft events — async).' It specifies the verb (generate), the resource (activity/event ideas), and key constraints (location, time range, async). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skylight_create_event, which is for manual event creation.

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. It does not mention when to use it over skylight_create_event or other tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or conditions. The lack of any usage context leaves the agent to infer from the name alone.

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