Get Device Scheduled Windows

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are upcoming maintenance periods with start/end times and types, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations, and it does not disclose any hidden side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core action and key return details. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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?

With an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return format, but it still provides a high-level return summary. It covers the mandatory parameter and one optional. Missing the optional org_uuid parameter is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'date' parameter as ISO 8601 UTC, but omits explanations for 'device_uuid' (implied but not explicit) and 'org_uuid' (not mentioned). This partial coverage is adequate given the simplicity of the parameters, but a 3 reflects the gap.

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 the tool retrieves upcoming scheduled maintenance periods for a specific device, with specifics on return values (start/end times, window types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_scheduled_windows and get_policy_window, which target groups or policy windows.

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 tells when to use (upcoming maintenance periods for a device) and mentions an optional date limit, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide guidance on when not to use this tool versus others. It implies use but lacks direct differentiation from siblings.

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