get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, or authorization needs. The description is too brief to adequately disclose 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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be restructured to include parameter guidance or behavioral notes without becoming verbose.

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 simple input and lack of output schema, the description leaves out critical details like what fields the response contains (beyond last_job_id). An agent would need to infer the response structure, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter (schedule_id). The description does not mention the parameter or explain how to obtain the schedule_id. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks a description.

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 provides a 'detail view of one schedule', indicating retrieval of a single schedule. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schedules by implying a specific schedule is targeted, but does not explicitly mention the schedule_id parameter.

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 suggests follow-up actions using get_dispatch or list_completions based on the returned last_job_id. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide any prerequisites.

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