Get Nirvana Scheduled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Returns' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose any other behavioral traits like potential side effects, authorization requirements, or performance characteristics. The description is acceptable but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence. It is concise, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple retrieval purpose, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could potentially mention filtering scope (e.g., user-specific), but for a straightforward list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'Scheduled' (state=3, deferred future start date), which complements the schema. Since no parameters exist, the description effectively clarifies what the tool returns.

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 tool returns 'Scheduled tasks' with state=3 and explains they are 'deferred to a specific future start date'. This specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inbox, get_next_actions, etc., which handle different task states.

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 implies usage by focusing on a specific task state (state=3) and provides a clear definition. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, the naming convention and state explanation offer sufficient guidance for an AI agent to choose this tool when needing deferred tasks.

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