Show Resource

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and the required parameters. It does not disclose additional traits such as pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters are in schema but not described) or response structure. The added context is helpful but not extensive.

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 concise, consisting of four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, includes the API endpoint and required parameters, and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of annotations and a complete schema, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the API version, legacy schedule domain, and the fact that it returns a JSON object. It could mention that page/per_page are optional pagination parameters, but that information is in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only mentions the required parameters (project_id, id) which is already stated in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the 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 verb 'Show detail' and the resource 'Schedule (Legacy) records.' It specifies the tool fetches full details by identifier and returns a JSON object. However, the initial mention of 'Resource' is slightly ambiguous, and it does not strongly differentiate from sibling show_* tools beyond the endpoint path.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for fetching full details of a specific Schedule (Legacy) record by its identifier. It lists required parameters and provides the API endpoint. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternative tools like list_schedule_resources.

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