practice_plan

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

With no annotations, the description is the primary source for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'Return' and discloses the output composition, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state whether it mutates state, how 'next' is determined, or whether the optional limit parameter alters the result, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the primary action and result. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's output, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description effectively covers what the tool returns, which substitutes for an output schema. However, the missing explanation of the 'limit' parameter creates a clear gap, preventing the description from being fully complete for all usage scenarios.

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 input schema has one parameter 'limit' with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate but fails to explain the meaning or effect of 'limit', leaving the parameter wholly undocumented.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'the next practice session as a review plan', and enumerates the exact fields included (scheduled next review time, current retrievability, historical success rate). This distinguishes it from related siblings like practice_report, practice_forecast, or practice_session, which have different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as practice_forecast or practice_report. It does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts, so the agent is left without explicit selection criteria.

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