get_due_repertoire_drill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: review is transposition-aware and expected moves are hidden (so the agent must not assume the answer is visible). However, it omits whether selecting a drill mutates review state or advances a schedule, and gives no auth/permission context.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'hide expected moves' clause could be clearer about whether hiding is a guarantee or a side effect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a stateful training tool with no annotations, the definition leaves key call-time questions open: does invoking it consume or advance a review item, and what prerequisites accompany learner_id.

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?

There is one parameter, learner_id, with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The description adds no meaning about whose repertoire is being drawn from or what a valid learner_id looks like, so the agent must infer it entirely.

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 states a specific verb (select) and resource (a due repertoire position) plus the mechanism (transposition-aware spaced review), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_repertoire_move and create_repertoire_drill. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_repertoire_move, create_repertoire_drill, or submit_repertoire_move, and no prerequisites or sequencing notes. The phrase 'due' implies a scheduling condition but never states what makes a position due or when an agent should invoke this.

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