next_interval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions adaptive spacing but doesn't state whether the tool reads or modifies memory intervals, what output it returns, or any side effects. The verb 'recommend' implies a read-only operation, but this is not made explicit. No info about error handling or performance is given.

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, focused sentence. It front-loads the action and object, and every word earns its place. The citation adds credibility without fluff. It is neither under-specified nor verbose.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) but lacks output schema and annotations. The description does not explain what the function actually returns (e.g., an interval value, in days/weeks), what happens when memory_id is omitted, or how 'retrieval history' is defined. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without further assumptions.

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?

The description does not mention the 'memory_id' parameter at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining the role of the parameter or whether it is optional. The phrase 'each memory' is vague about whether memory_id selects one or multiple. This leaves the only parameter completely unexplained.

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 action ('Recommend each memory's next review interval') and specifies the data source ('from retrieval history') and method ('adaptive spacing'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the adaptive spacing algorithm and citing a study, making it clear this is about interval computation, not planning or reporting.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'spacing_plan' and 'practice_plan' could overlap, but the description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The use case is only implied by the natural language.

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