spacing_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the spacing principle (distributed practice, Cepeda 2006) which gives insight into how the schedule is constructed, but it does not mention side effects, whether it stores data, return values, or parameter effects. Some behavioral context is provided, but operational details are missing.

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?

Single sentence, immediately states the purpose, includes a citation for credibility. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description leaves significant gaps. It explains the high-level algorithm but not how to invoke the tool correctly (parameter semantics, return types, side effects). The agent would likely need to guess or inspect other resources.

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?

Both parameters (days, limit) have no schema descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. The 0% schema description coverage means the description is responsible for explaining parameter meaning, but it fails to do so. An agent would not know what 'days' or 'limit' refer to.

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 function: 'Build a spaced review schedule' with specific details about the scheduling logic (fading memories early, strong ones later, interleaving). This distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like practice_plan or review_due by specifying the spaced review algorithm.

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 when one needs a spaced review schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named.

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