generate_study_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose side effects and behavior. 'Generate' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the tool merely returns a plan, persists it, or modifies state. The description also does not say whether the plan is based on the entire backlog or on a filtered subset.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the verb appears first, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It does not explain what a generated study plan contains, whether the operation has side effects, how the optional subject filter behaves, or how it relates to schedule-retrieval siblings. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional 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 only 33%, and the description does not mention any parameters at all. Required params like 'days' and 'hours_per_day' are left undocumented in the description, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('study plan') with a source ('backlog'), making the action clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling getter tools like get_schedule and get_backlog by indicating an active generation process rather than retrieval.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of schedule getters or backlog inspection tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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