hcm_get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens for invalid IDs, what fields are returned, or any error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately short for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits any indication of what the returned schedule contains and does not mention the likely relationship to hcm_search_schedules.

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. The phrase 'by id' minimally ties scheduleId to the operation, and the single parameter is self-describing, but no guidance is given on how to obtain the ID or what format to use.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get work schedule by id.' It distinguishes itself from hcm_search_schedules by making clear this is a direct ID-based lookup rather than a search, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when a schedule ID is already known, likely after using hcm_search_schedules. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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