sleep_debt_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that the output is a count of 30-min sessions needed, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose that the operation is read-only (though implied by 'calculate'), nor does it mention any edge cases like missing targetSleep or input validation. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the name but is not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by an output detail. It is concise and to the point, with no redundant phrasing. It earns its length by adding the 30-minute session output detail, which is useful.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain input units, default behavior for targetSleep, calculation logic, or how it differs from sleep_calculator. An agent would need to guess or infer crucial details to call it correctly, making the description incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It does not clarify units (hours? minutes?), what targetSleep represents (default value if omitted), or how the debt is computed (e.g., weekly average vs. total). The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds no semantic detail beyond that. Given the lack of schema coverage, this is a significant 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 clearly states a specific verb (calculate) and resource (weekly sleep debt vs target), and mentions the output (number of extra 30-min sleep sessions). It is distinct from sibling sleep_calculator which likely addresses general sleep needs, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sleep_calculator or other siblings. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly state conditions or alternatives. An agent cannot determine when this tool is the right choice over sleep_calculator without additional context.

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