plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does an excellent job: states the output is non-persistent, notes the exact ordering ('started-then-priority-then-due'), explains weekend handling, greedy packing, filter fallbacks, and explicitly states 'The suggested day is not saved to the task.' This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what any annotation would provide.

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 three information-dense sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers weekend handling and filtering, and ends with the non-persistence caveat. Every clause adds value, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 (6 optional parameters, planning logic, non-persistent behavior), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ordering, packing, weekend handling, filtering, fallback to config, and non-save guarantee. An output schema exists, so lack of return-format detail is acceptable. The description sufficiently equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It explains `include_weekends` (weekends skipped unless set), `projects`/`labels` (narrow candidates), `exclude_labels` (drop private work), and capacity via 'daily focus budget (default from config).' It does not explicitly mention the `days` parameter, but 'day-by-day schedule' and 'Counts working days' imply it. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Propose a non-persistent day-by-day schedule of open tasks.' It specifies the resource (open tasks), the action (propose schedule), and key traits (greedily packed, ordered, non-persistent). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'not saved to the task,' which differentiates it from persistence-oriented tools like agenda or task editing.

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 clear behavioral context (weekends skipped, filtering via projects/labels, fallback to config) that implies when to use the tool: for proposing a schedule of open tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any alternative. The 'non-persistent' hint is the closest to an exclusion, but it is not explicit.

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