explain_scheduler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it adds almost no behavioral context beyond the action verb. It doesn't state output form, depth of explanation, or any constraints, though the presence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values.

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 efficient sentence front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted wording. It is compact and appropriately sized for a minimal tool definition, though the vague 'simpler' qualifier slightly muddies it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the single required parameter is covered. But with zero annotations and crowded sibling space, the description is only minimally complete—it doesn't help an agent decide when this tool is correct.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the same 'L3', 'orchestrator', 'hierarchical' examples. The description merely echoes this at a higher level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb ('Explain') and a resource ('scheduler level (L0–L6), engine, or concrete implementation tree'), so the action is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings like explain_task_queue, explain_abstraction, or explain_pass, and the modifier 'simpler' is ambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling 'explain_*' tools, nor any prerequisites or context for choosing it. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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