Show Project Schedule Settings

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and mentions the exact endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers usage, pagination, and endpoint details without unnecessary fluff.

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's simplicity and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what is returned (paginated JSON array with metadata), lists required parameters, and provides the API endpoint. It lacks details on error responses or rate limits but is sufficient for basic use.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that page and per_page control pagination and that response includes pagination metadata, which slightly adds value but is essentially restating schema info.

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 Schedule tool settings for a given project. It uses the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource. However, it mixes terminology by mentioning 'Schedule (Legacy) records' which slightly confuses settings vs records. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_schedule_by_id' by focusing on settings, not the schedule itself.

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 advises using the tool to fetch full details of Schedule (Legacy) records by identifier, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the context of 'settings' vs 'schedule' implicitly differentiates it from other schedule-related tools.

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