get_daily_unlock_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool issues only Get commands (read-only), reads from paginated GetTimeSpecGroups, derives a window, and checks whether it is active on the host clock. This goes beyond a simple 'reports the window' statement and gives useful behavioral context.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the included details. It is somewhat long but every clause adds meaningful detail about scope, source, and read-only behavior, so it earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only reporting tool, the description is quite complete: it names the managed group, the source commands, the derived window, and the active-now check. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema and a complex report, a bit more detail on the return shape would help; still, the core calling context is fully covered.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input surface. The description adds value by explaining what the tool reports and how it derives the result, which is more than the empty schema provides. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 ('Reports') and a precise resource ('managed daily recurring unlock window'), and enumerates exactly what is included. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_unlock_window by specifying the managed 'MCP Daily Unlock Window' group and the derived window, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clearly implies this is a read-only reporting tool for the managed daily unlock window and notes it reads from paginated GetTimeSpecGroups. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the detailed scope and read-only note give clear context for when to call it.

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