get_charging_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects and return behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, returns data, or has any side effects. While the tool name suggests a getter, the description itself does not disclose the behavioral contract, leaving uncertainty about what the tool does.

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 a single, concise sentence fragment that directly states the subject. It includes a relevant detail about time format (HH:MM) without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though slightly informal as a fragment.

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 is a simple getter, the description is incomplete because it fails to explicitly state the action (retrieval) and the expected result. It provides the subject matter but not the operational context. A user cannot fully understand what the tool does without inferring from the name, making it contextually incomplete.

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?

Both parameters have individual schema descriptions explaining their purpose and optionality ('Charger name. Unnecessary if only one is configured'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, placing this at the baseline. The descriptions are adequate but not enhanced by the main 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 'Scheduled charging time windows' is a noun phrase and does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves or returns the schedule. It lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making the action ambiguous. A user might infer it from the tool name, but the description alone is insufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as add_charging_schedule or remove_charging_schedule. It does not mention that it is for viewing or retrieving existing schedules, nor does it contrast with the mutation tools. The absence of any directional context leaves the user without selection criteria.

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