Get Device Scheduled Windows

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining that start/end are derived from dtstart+duration_minutes+rrule (not stored), and timezone basis follows use_local_tz. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; description supplements with system behavior details.

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 sentences with clear, front-loaded purpose. The first sentence delivers main action and return values. Second sentence adds necessary detail without verbosity. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet parameters) but remains efficient.

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?

Covers core functionality and derived-field behavior. Missing description for 'org_uuid' parameter. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Annotation openWorldHint could be addressed, but not critical. Fairly complete for a read tool with annotations.

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 description must compensate. Only the 'date' parameter is described (ISO 8601 UTC, optional). 'device_uuid' is implied by tool name but not elaborated; 'org_uuid' is not mentioned at all. Incomplete parameter coverage.

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 it gets upcoming scheduled maintenance periods for a specific device, specifying return values (start/end times, window types) and optional date limit. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_group_scheduled_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_group_scheduled_windows or search_policy_windows. The description implies usage for device-specific windows but provides no exclusions or comparative context.

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