find_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses special cases: multi-sheet schedules are one match with parts, rotated headers are flagged, building-specific tables are tagged, errors return partial findings, and coordinate system details are given. This is far beyond a basic summary and gives the agent complete expectations.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful information, such as multi-sheet behavior and coordinate conventions. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It could be trimmed slightly by moving coordinate details to an output schema, but within the current context it is efficient.

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 that the description explains the main use case, output structure, special cases, error behavior, and coordinate system, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema (not shown) means return details are available elsewhere, and the description fills in the gaps that the schema would not cover.

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 only parameter 'kind' is already fully described in the input schema, including valid values ('room finish', 'finish'/'material') and their meanings. The tool description repeats these values but adds no new semantic detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Locate a schedule table in the set (#87)' – a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's function. It further specifies the output ('sheet, title, headers, TOTAL row count, and REGION') and distinguishes itself from siblings like read_sheet_text and find_text by focusing on schedule tables and their matching structure.

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?

It tells you exactly how to use it: 'pass a kind' and the valid values are provided. It also suggests when to use the output ('sized for a view_sheet look or a read_sheet_text pull'), which implies a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as sweep_schedule_row, though the context is largely clear.

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