athena_schedule_multiperiod

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals algorithmic traits (bounded beam-search, finite-horizon) and the limitation of no global optimality, but does not state whether the tool mutates state, requires authorization, or what it returns. This is a significant gap in understanding the tool's side effects and output.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the algorithm type and scope, followed by constraints and a limitation. Every word contributes value, with no padding or redundancy.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, side effects, and usage guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool without additional information.

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 should compensate, but it only loosely maps to parameters (e.g., 'task dependencies' to tasks, 'worker capacity' to workers, 'resource budgets' to budget, 'finite-horizon' to horizon, 'beam-search' to beam_width). It fails to explain parameter formats, defaults, or relationships for the 7 parameters, leaving most semantics unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as a 'bounded beam-search finite-horizon scheduler' over task dependencies, worker capacity, and resource budgets, conveying its core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling scheduling tools like athena_budget_schedule or athena_collective_plan, relying mainly on algorithmic details rather than comparative differentiation.

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 usage for finite-horizon scheduling with dependencies and resource constraints, and the caveat 'does not claim global optimality' provides a limitation. Yet it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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