get_mwindows

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info, but it only restates the tool name. It does not mention pagination, output format, ordering, or any side effects, leaving the agent without insight beyond the verb 'Get'.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it remains efficient for a simple listing tool.

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 straightforward paginated listing with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. It lacks any usage context or differentiation from siblings, but given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and offset) with defaults and types, achieving 100% coverage. Therefore the schema carries the parameter semantics, and the description adds no extra meaning, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('maintenance windows'), clearly distinguishing it from create/edit/delete sibling tools. The meaning is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or context. The description simply states the operation without any situational advice.

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