schedule_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation has no persistent side effect ("without storing anything"), which is valuable context. It does not describe return format or failure behavior, but for a pure computation tool the core behavioral fact is disclosed.

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 three focused sentences: what the tool computes, example user questions it answers, and the sibling alternative. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the most important fact (non-persistent computation) is front-loaded.

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 fairly complex scheduling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the key facts: what it does, what values it produces, and which sibling to choose instead. It does not document the exact return structure, but the listed outputs and schema together are sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents parameter meanings such as tasks, holidays, workDays, and startDate. The description adds only a useful hint that the input shape matches create_gantt and that name is optional, which is already implied by the schema; no major parameter burden is added.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Compute a schedule without storing anything" and names the concrete outputs: "dates, critical path, float and project end." It also distinguishes itself from create_gantt by contrasting a computed schedule with a chart an agent can open, so an agent can tell siblings apart.

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?

Usage is explicit: the description provides exact user intents that map to this tool ("what is the critical path?", "when would this finish?", "how much slack does X have?"). It also names the alternative condition: "Use create_gantt when the user wants a chart they can open." This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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