START HERE. The ZenSched agent guide: how to Connect (Claude.ai) or use a zsc_ key, then fund → locations → workers → shifts → timesheets. Also covers the suggestion box (feedback_submit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful context about the guide's contents (connection, workflow, feedback), but doesn't describe the format of the returned guidance or any pagination/truncation behavior. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure beyond 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 compact and front-loaded with 'START HERE' before the core details. The arrow flow efficiently communicates the sequence of steps, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter guide tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the guide is, its content scope, and the order of operations. It also mentions the feedback_submit topic to prevent an agent from overlooking that sibling. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema already confirms this with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4 because there is nothing to clarify about arguments. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since none exist, and it correctly omits any.
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 unmistakably states this is the ZenSched agent guide, with 'START HERE' signaling its role as the entry point. It specifies the resource (guide) and outlines the covered workflow (fund → locations → workers → shifts → timesheets), clearly distinguishing it from all sibling action tools.
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?
'START HERE' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: at the beginning of a session. It also references the connection methods (Claude.ai or zsc_ key) and names feedback_submit as another covered topic, providing clear context for routing. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' phrasing, but the positioning is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The account tools are distinct flow steps (start/verify for signup, signin, recover) plus a status check and key usage, so they're largely unambiguous. However, the two start/verify pairs could be confused, and feedback_submit/zensched_guide are unrelated to account management, though their purposes are clear from descriptions.
The majority follow an 'account_' prefix with verb_style suffixes (e.g., account_signin_start). feedback_submit and zensched_guide break the pattern, but they are distinct actions and the naming is still readable and predictable overall.
11 tools is a reasonable number for an authentication-focused server, but the server is supposed to be for scheduling. With 8 of 11 tools being account/auth, the count feels heavy on setup and light on actual domain operations.
The tool surface is almost entirely authentication and account management, with no tools for scheduling core resources like locations, workers, shifts, or timesheets—despite the guide mentioning these as the intended workflow. The server would be useless for actual scheduling tasks.