check_schedule_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the checks performed (missing dates, resource assignments, etc.), implying read-only analysis. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or performance considerations, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 plus a concise bullet list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every element adds value without redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key checks and introduces threshold parameters. It could be more complete by noting the return format or file path requirement, but overall it sufficiently informs the agent for typical use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains long_duration_days and high_float_days defaults and meaning, but does not describe file_path, project_id, or project_short_name. Partial coverage adds value but leaves gaps.

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 performs a DCMA-style schedule quality check on open/in-progress activities. It lists specific checks (missing predecessors, successors, long duration, high float, etc.), making the purpose precise and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_critical_path or get_schedule_summary.

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 context (DCMA-style check on open/in-progress activities) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites. The list of checks implies appropriate scenarios, but lacks direct guidance.

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