rh11_schedule_get

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation: what data is returned (per-day volumes with specific categories) and the conditional sfb_lock_info augmentation when lock-window conditions apply.

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 two sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence adds precisely the conditional detail that matters, with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content and a key conditional field. Minor gaps such as exact date range or full response format are not critical for correct invocation.

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 parameter ui_id, and the schema already describes it as 'Project unique identifier'. The description does not add further parameter nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'current schedule for a Rhodium11 project'. Listing the per-day service volumes (atc, sfb, pgv, wishlist) adds clear scope and distinguishes it from sibling write tools like rh11_schedule_set and rh11_schedule_quick_set.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the getter naming and read-only nature, but the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as rh11_projects_get or rh11_schedule_set.

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