practice_due

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 a key behavior: listing cues only without answers. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, logging, or any impact on memory scheduling, which is important with 9 optional parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action, mode, and purpose.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the basic idea. It leaves parameter meanings and return format entirely unspecified, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke or configure the tool.

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% for 9 parameters, and the description provides no semantics for any of them. It does not explain what 'kind', 'limit', 'vary_cues', 'interleave', 'adaptive_gap', or other parameters do. The description must compensate for this gap but does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('due memories'), and adds mode ('cues only, no answer') and purpose ('testing-effect self-quizzing'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like practice_answer (which likely shows answers) and practice_report (which reports practice stats).

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 for retrieval practice and self-quizzing, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, missing the highest level of guidance.

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