Get Group Scheduled Windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns upcoming maintenance periods with an optional date limit, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, pagination) are disclosed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required) with good annotations and an output schema. The description covers return values and optional date, but omits details on org_uuid usage and date limit semantics (inclusive/exclusive).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It only explains the 'date' parameter (ISO 8601 UTC limit), leaving group_uuid and org_uuid unexplained. org_uuid is not mentioned at all.

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 retrieves upcoming scheduled maintenance periods for a server group, specifying return values (start/end times, window types). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_device_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?

The description implies usage context (server group) and mentions an optional date filter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_policy_windows or get_device_scheduled_windows.

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