get_due_cards

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

No annotations exist, and the description offers no behavioral details (e.g., read-only, return format, side effects). The agent cannot infer how the tool operates or what to expect.

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 too brief to be useful. It is underspecified rather than concise, containing only a generic label that fails to convey the tool's function.

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 absence of output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description should clarify what 'get_due_cards' does. It omits essential context, leaving the agent without actionable information.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description has no parameters to explain. Per guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. However, the description adds no value beyond the 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 'Local study app tool' is vague and does not state a specific action or resource. It fails to clarify that the tool retrieves due cards, relying solely on the name for inference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_cards or get_study_app_status). The context of sibling tools suggests a study app, but no usage direction is given.

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