build_schedule

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces credits, grid, conflicts, and warnings, but does not discuss error handling, validation, or whether it is read-only. Fails to fully characterize behavior beyond outputs.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and outputs. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating inputs from outputs) without losing brevity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and a relatively simple input schema (2 params, 1 required), the description provides enough context for basic usage but lacks guidance on the 'semester' parameter and potential edge cases, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only partially explains parameters: it mentions 'section ids' for the 'sections' parameter but completely omits the 'semester' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 the tool assembles a weekly schedule from section IDs, listing key outputs (credits, grid, conflicts, warnings). It distinguishes from siblings like check_schedule_conflicts (focused on conflicts alone) and list_schedules (listing saved schedules).

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 when you have section IDs and want a full schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_schedule_conflicts, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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