plan_adventuring_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates, suggests, and recommends, which are non-destructive planning actions. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any state or stores data, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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 of 16 words. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'Plan' and immediately states the key outputs, with no unnecessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the output format (e.g., a structured object with XP budget, encounter difficulties, etc.). Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description could provide more detail on the return value to be fully complete.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a default behavior note for 'difficulty_mix' (defaults to balanced mix), which is helpful but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: planning a full D&D adventuring day, calculating XP budget, suggesting encounter difficulty distribution, and recommending short rest placement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'build_encounter' and 'suggest_encounter' by focusing on the day-level planning.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (for planning a full day) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'build_encounter' or 'suggest_encounter'. The sibling context offers some differentiation, but the description lacks direct usage guidelines.

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