find_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses how schedules are matched (including continued schedules as one match with parts), handling of rotated headers, building-specific tables, revised rows, and coordinate system details (px at render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down). Error messages are explained, and sheet payload dimensions are mentioned. This is highly transparent.

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 long but densely packed with essential information. It front-loads the main purpose and then systematically covers edge cases and technical details. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. The structure is logical and 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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the result structure (parts, building, revised_rows), error handling, coordinate system, and sheet payload dimensions. No critical aspect is missing; users know exactly what to expect and how to use the tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'kind' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning: it explains that 'room finish' corresponds to rooms→surface finishes and 'finish'/'material' to codes→products, and connects the parameter to the tool's overall purpose. This extra explanation justifies a 4, though the schema already covers the literal values.

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 tool's purpose: to locate schedule tables in a set by passing a kind, and it lists exactly what information is returned (sheet, title, headers, TOTAL row count, REGION). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing view_sheet and read_sheet_text usage and detailing edge cases (multi-sheet schedules, rotated headers, building-specific tables). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: to find schedules for viewing or reading. It explains the 'kind' parameter choices and their meanings ('room finish' vs 'finish'/'material'), and describes the output structure that guides downstream actions. It also covers error behavior when the kind isn't found, giving clear expectations.

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