study_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists what the plan aggregates but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates any state, whether it requires auth, or how '断点' (breakpoint) is determined. Only content composition is disclosed, not behavior.

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?

It is a single terse phrase with no wasted words, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving key concepts (quota, breakpoint) unexplained.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it neither explains the parameters nor clarifies the return/plan structure, and it does not address behavior at all. It is a content label rather than a usable tool definition.

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% and neither parameter is referenced in the description. The roles of 'date' (plan target date?) and 'quota' (cap on items?) are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states what the tool produces (today's plan) and enumerates its composition: due reviews, uncleared wrong questions, and breakpoints/resume points. That is a specific resource with meaningful scope beyond the name. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling review_due, which appears to cover one of the same components.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as review_due or review_grade. The agent must infer that this is a daily-planning aggregator purely from the name and the component list.

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