schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose important failure behaviors: it errors on dependency cycles and errors when a dependency outside the target has not shipped. It also explains target self-containment. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects on the plan, or how it treats the branch/project scoping beyond the schema descriptions.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core idea is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds important information about scoping and error behavior. It is compact enough for an agent to parse quickly while still carrying substantive guidance.

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?

For a tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main operational concerns: dependency ordering, cycle errors, target scoping, and mis-scoping indicators. The main gaps are that 'open plan' is used as a domain term without a brief definition, and the relationship to sibling planning tools is not addressed. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the agent to invoke the tool correctly in the target-scoped case.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for `target`: it explains that the scoped result is the build read set and that a target ships as one self-contained stack. It does not add much about `branch` or `project`, but those are already well described in 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 clearly presents the tool's output — the open plan represented as dependency-ordered layers — and explains the target-scoping behavior. It is not a tautology, and it is specific enough to distinguish 'schedule' from mutation-style siblings, but it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'computes', and it does not differentiate itself from closely related planning tools such as list_planning or prereqs.

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 gives clear guidance on when to pass `target` ('to scope it to one roadmap target') and explains what the scoped result means ('what a build dispatched that target should read'). It also explains an error condition that reveals misuse ('a dep outside the target that has not shipped ... means the target is mis-scoped'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling planning/list tools.

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