anon_get_dashboard_schedule

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two valuable non-structural facts: caller must be a project member, and the project is resolved automatically from the API key so no projectId is passed. Rate limits and return shape remain unstated.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses: purpose, auth requirement, endpoint/scope clarification. Every sentence carries information; only the raw endpoint string is arguably redundant with the tool name.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and the scoping rule. It could hint at what a "schedule group" contains, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 only schema parameter (days, default 7, max 30) already carries its own description and constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds meaning only for the absent projectId (auto-determined), not for the days parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("获取日程分组") and includes the concrete endpoint GET /api/projects/{id}/dashboard/schedule. The schedule resource is distinguishable from dashboard siblings like anon_get_dashboard_summary and anon_get_dashboard_my_actions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ("需项目成员身份" – requires project member identity), which is real usage signal, but offers no when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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