get_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the tool reads from the plan, uses wall_height for wall volumes, and returns columns, rows, and totals – useful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but the 'read' framing strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 compact and information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the covered categories, and ends with the return shape and a parameter dependency note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only schedule tool with an output schema, the description covers the key parameters and their effects. It explains the kind options, optional level filter, and wall_height role. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that kind is required, but the schema already marks it required.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the meaning of each kind value, clarifies that level optionally filters to one level, and specifies wall_height is in mm and used for wall volumes. Minor gaps remain, such as units for other measurements, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 tool returns a quantity schedule of the building and enumerates the content categories (doors, windows, walls, rooms, stairs, levels). It is specific about what is included, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and does not differentiate itself from sibling export_schedule.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_schedule or get_levels. It implies usage through its purpose but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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