window_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Turn current quota into a bounded work segment' hints at a transformation or planning operation, but it does not disclose whether this mutates state, creates files, requires permissions, or is reversible. The mention of 'reserve and checkpoint rules' adds context but not enough detail.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome. However, its brevity comes at the cost of key details, so it is efficient but not fully substantive.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description alone must provide complete context. It does not explain what 'bounded work segment' means, how reserve rules work, what checkpoint rules entail, or how jobClass and requestedMinutes affect the plan. This is insufficient for an agent to 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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (workspaceRoot, jobClass, requestedMinutes). The terms 'quota' and 'reserve' indirectly relate to requestedMinutes and reserve rules, but no parameter meanings or usage details are provided. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('current quota') to convey that this tool creates a bounded work segment with reserve and checkpoint rules. It is distinct enough from siblings like checkpoint_save and resume_contract, though it does not explicitly name them for differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied through phrases like 'current quota' and 'bounded work segment', suggesting it is used when planning a work window. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over checkpoint_save or resume_contract, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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