get_schedule

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

The description elaborates on behavior beyond annotations: it works for both schedule types, resolves automatically, and the kind hint can be wrong or omitted without error. This aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, adding valuable context.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's input, behavior, and return type. It is complete for a get-single-entity operation with two parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents both parameters: schedule_id is clearly the ID to retrieve, and kind is an optional hint that resolves correctly even if wrong. This adds significant meaning over the bare schema.

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 action ('Get a single schedule by ID') and the resource ('schedule'). It explicitly mentions compatibility with both layer-based and shift-based schedules, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schedules or get_schedule_v3_custom_shift.

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 explains that normally no kind specification is needed, and that the kind parameter is an optional hint. It provides clear guidance on usage but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like list_schedules.

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