Get change request schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds error behavior such as MissingParameterError and ParameterError, plus a return type, but it does not explain filtering, pagination, or how the many optional parameters affect 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, the rest is Sphinx-style field markup with duplicate :raises ParameterError entries and :rtype: Response, which adds structural noise rather than agent-relevant guidance.

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 22 optional parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the definition is far too thin. It does not explain how to use the filters, what the schedule response contains, or how results are paginated.

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% across 22 parameters, and the description documents only cmdb_ci_sys_id. Worse, it says cmdb_ci_sys_id is required and raises MissingParameterError if absent, while the schema marks all parameters optional. The remaining 21 parameters receive no semantic explanation.

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: retrieving the schedule of a change request based on CI sys ID. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as get_change_request, get_change_request_ci, or get_change_request_tasks.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The phrase 'based on CI sys ID' gives a hint about invocation, but it does not help an agent choose between this and the many other change-request retrieval tools.

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