get_email_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with two brief sentences that front-load the core purpose and return value. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return value, but with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral traits. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is just acceptable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied as it handles the no-parameter case efficiently without unnecessary information.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available email sending schedules'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'email_send' or 'sequences_list', which might also involve scheduling aspects, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'email_send' and 'sequences_list' potentially related to email operations, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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