retrieve_timetable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful context about the state being previously saved and publicly shared (implying no mutation and no auth-scoped access), but says nothing about what is returned or error behavior for invalid ids.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by the parameter, with no filler.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. A note on the source of the share id (e.g., returned by save_timetable) would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (only a pattern and minLength), so the description carries the burden; it explains that the single parameter is a 'public share id', giving semantic meaning beyond the bare format constraints. It omits where such an id comes from (presumably save_timetable).

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?

Specific verb ('Load') plus resource ('previously saved Timetable Builder state') and an explicit identifying parameter ('public share id'). It is distinguishable from save_timetable/generate_timetable, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_current_sessions.

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 phrase 'previously saved' implies the tool is for restoring an existing state when a share id is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative such as get_current_sessions for live state.

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