Show Checklist Schedule

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

Adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: read-only confirmation, failure modes (401/403/404), and project_id defaulting behavior. However, the default project_id claim contradicts the schema's required flag and the description's own 'Required parameters' statement, creating confusion about actual behavior.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage, defaults, return, read-only, error handling, required params, and API reference each earn their place. No fluff or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, error handling, and endpoint. No output schema exists, but 'single JSON object' is adequate for the tool's complexity. Could elaborate on return fields, but not necessary.

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 both parameters. Description adds guidance that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via list tool, which is helpful. The project_id default statement adds semantic info but is inconsistent with the schema requirement, slightly reducing clarity.

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 retrieves a single Checklist Schedule by specifying verb (Retrieves), resource (Checklist Schedule), and scope (in a specified Project). It distinguishes from list tools by noting 'when you already know which checklist schedule you want and need its full field 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know which checklist schedule you want' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool (e.g., list_checklist_schedules), but the direction is unambiguous.

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