Get Group Scheduled Windows

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that 'start/end are derived occurrence times' (not stored directly) and that timezone follows the window's use_local_tz, which is valuable behavioral context 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 concise: two sentences plus an additional clarifying sentence about derived times. Every sentence adds value without 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values. It covers the core purpose, the date parameter, and a key behavioral nuance. However, it omits explanation of the 'org_uuid' parameter and doesn't elaborate on 'window types'. Overall, fairly complete but with a minor gap.

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 an ISO 8601 UTC future limit, but does not clarify 'group_uuid' or 'org_uuid'. This adds partial meaning but leaves gaps.

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's purpose: 'Get upcoming scheduled maintenance periods for a server group.' It specifies the resource (server group) and the output (start/end times, window types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_scheduled_windows and get_policy_window.

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 mentions optional usage of the 'date' parameter as a future date limit in ISO 8601 UTC, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify conditions for not using it.

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