schedule_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool's global scope, the bucketing logic (Overdue / This week / Next 2 weeks / This month / Later), and the live days-left countdown. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or response structure, but the description gives substantial insight into the tool's operation.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('ALL-PROJECTS deadline countdown') and then packs in scope, bucketing details, and example use cases. There is no redundant or filler content; every element contributes value.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description provides a strong mental model: scope (all projects, all due-date work items), grouping (time horizons), and purpose (deadline awareness). It does not detail the exact output format beyond the buckets, but for a simple overview tool the description is largely complete.

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 only parameter, 'format', is fully described by the schema's enum (markdown/json) and default value, so the description's lack of param detail is not a major gap. However, since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for low coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'ALL-PROJECTS deadline countdown — every work item that has a due date, across every project'. It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from project-specific tools like get_project_metrics or portfolio_overview by emphasizing it covers all projects. The bucket definitions further clarify exactly what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: "Use for 'what's due soon', 'what's overdue', 'deadlines', 'what should I do this week'." This provides strong context, though it does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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