Get a schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, permission requirements, error behavior for a missing schedule, or how the panel/server resolution works. The only disclosure is that tasks are included in the result.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the panel-resolution fallback, the inline credential overrides, or what the returned schedule/task structure contains. An agent would have to guess at several call-shaping details.

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 only 67%, and the two required parameters ('server' and 'schedule') have no descriptions in either the schema or the description. The description adds no meaning about their format, allowed values, or how the optional panel/baseUrl/clientKey overrides interact with them.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a specific resource ('one schedule'), and it adds that the related tasks are returned. This implicitly separates it from schedule_list and the schedule_task_* tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the prerequisite that a server and schedule identifier must already be known, and no pointer to schedule_list or schedule_task_* as alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the word 'one'.

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