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 no contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool provides guidance content and which topics it covers, going beyond the bare annotation and clarifying the tool's non-mutating informational role.
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 two succinct sentences, front-loads the critical 'START HERE' cue, and packs the guide's scope into a scannable arrow chain. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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, read-only guide tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to call and use it correctly: what it is, where to start, and what topics it covers. There is no missing information needed for invocation.
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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.
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 this is an agent guide for ZenSched, using the specific verb 'guide' and naming the resource. It differentiates itself from sibling account tools by positioning itself as the 'START HERE' onboarding tool with a concrete topic list (Connect, fund, locations, workers, shifts, timesheets, feedback_submit).
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' gives an explicit usage directive: this is the first tool to consult. The sequential arrow chain 'fund → locations → workers → shifts → timesheets' implies the workflow to follow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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 flows are mostly distinguishable: create, signup, signin, recover, and use_key have distinct purposes, and the descriptions include helpful preference guidance. The start/verify pairs and the similar signup/signin names create minor ambiguity, but descriptions resolve it.
Most tools follow a snake_case account_<action> pattern with clear start/verify pairs, and feedback_submit fits the verb_noun style. The naming is slightly inconsistent because zensched_guide is a bare noun and account_auth_status is not structured like the other action-oriented tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, and the multiple account tools each correspond to a distinct authentication flow. The count is slightly heavy on account management relative to the apparent scheduling domain, but no tool feels redundant.
The guide explicitly mentions fund, locations, workers, shifts, and timesheets, but none of those scheduling operations are exposed as tools. The server is essentially an account-authentication and feedback surface, and it even references missing tools like account_get and account_set_contact, so it severely under-serves the stated ZenSched purpose.