Daily plan

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description adds that apply:true writes labels (a mutation), explains the budget interpretation, and describes the return value (dispatch groups). No contradictions are present. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence adds value: purpose, budget, model assignments, effort levels, apply behavior, return type, and pairing advice. It is not overly verbose and is well-structured, though a slight separation of concerns could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (dispatch groups with parallel sub-agents) and references internal code for further details. It covers behavior, parameters, output, and usage context (pair with daily_plan prompt). The tool is complex, and the description provides sufficient completeness for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions), and the description adds meaning: it explains the budget in terms of days/weeks, the apply parameter's effect, and the model roster with values (fable, opus, etc.) that are not captured in the schema. The description compensates well for the undocumented project parameter.

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 verb ('Plan TODAY') and resource ('priority queue'), and specifies the scope (daily slice, default budget). It distinguishes from siblings by its unique function of assigning models and effort levels, which is not covered by other planning tools like 'plan_work' or 'plan_budget'.

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 for when to use (daily planning, with a budget model) and mentions pairing with a prompt, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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