task_synergy_planner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the cross-referencing behavior and the output (single mission suggestion) but omits any mention of the platform parameter, data freshness, error handling, or what happens if no combos exist. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and states the benefit clearly.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. The only minor gap is not mentioning the platform parameter in the description, but that is fully documented in the schema.

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 schema covers the only parameter ('platform') with a clear description and enum, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 with a specific verb ('find'), a defined resource ('activity combos'), and a concrete outcome ('which single mission can complete multiple objectives'). It references specific data sources (Nightwave, Fissures, Invasions, Sortie), distinguishing it from sibling tools like active_fissures.

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 when to use the tool (when seeking efficient multi-objective combos) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools or exclusions is provided.

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