hedera_get_schedule_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Read' and lists returned data (signatures, executed status). However, it does not disclose error handling, required permissions, or format of the scheduleId.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return data. Could be improved by mentioning that the schedule object includes fields like creatorAccountId, but the listed items (signatures, executed status) are sufficient.

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 single parameter scheduleId has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the expected format of scheduleId (e.g., a string like '0.0.12345'), leaving agents to guess the correct input format.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'scheduled-transaction info' with specific details 'signatures, executed status' from the Mirror Node. It distinguishes from sibling schedule tools (create, sign, delete).

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 clear context that this tool reads schedule info, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like hedera_get_transaction. However, the name and description are sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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