study_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description reinforces this ('changes no remote calendar'). It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: London-time computation, exclusion of cached classes and exact deadlines, defaults treated as explicit assumptions, and that unscheduled work is returned.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and scope before the behavioral caveats. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and 6 undocumented parameters, the description should carry more weight than it does. It partially covers return behavior ('Returns unscheduled work') but leaves the numerical schedule parameters' meanings entirely to inference.

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% across 6 parameters, yet the description explains none of them individually (start_date, days, day_start/day_end, block_minutes, daily_minutes). Only 'Defaults are explicit assumptions' vaguely gestures at the default-bearing parameters, and 'London-time' gives a hint about timezone handling.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact ('Draft a ... study plan') plus its source ('from local tasks') and timezone scope ('London-time'). It is distinguishable from siblings like study_agenda or study_deadlines, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives are given. The reader must infer that this is for scheduling study blocks; nothing routes the agent between this and study_agenda, study_deadlines, or study_tasks.

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