Show The Schedule Integration Type For A Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it returns a paginated JSON array with metadata. However, it does not explain scope (current project) or any constraints beyond what the schema and annotations imply.

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 poorly structured: it starts with a table of schedule types (which may be helpful but is not the primary output), then shifts abruptly to fetching legacy schedule records. The pagination details and API info are mixed in, making it less front-loaded and harder to parse quickly.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should clearly explain the response structure. It only vaguely says 'paginated JSON array of Schedule (Legacy) records' without describing fields or how the table of types relates. The description feels incomplete and internally inconsistent.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description restates that project_id is required and mentions pagination controls, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 is contradictory: it first states it returns schedule integration configuration, then says it fetches full details of Schedule (Legacy) records as a paginated array. The name and initial description suggest a single type value, but the later part implies a list of records. This inconsistency degrades clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like show_schedule_by_id or list_schedules. The description implies it's for fetching specific record details, but the pagination aspect and lack of differentiation make it unclear.

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