alertops_get_user_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It contributes a useful constraint (max 3-month date range) and a dependency on a prior call. However, it does not disclose safety (read-only), return format, or behavior for empty schedules, leaving notable gaps for a tool that must be invoked without annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and the key constraint; the second gives the input prerequisite. Purpose is front-loaded and the constraint is placed where it is most relevant.

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, parameter-rich list operation, the description plus fully described schema supplies what is needed to invoke it correctly: the target user, date range, and the upstream source for the username. It could be more complete by mentioning return behavior or explicitly routing to alternatives, but nothing critical is missing for calling it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 3-month range cap and indirectly reinforces user_name's source, but the schema already documents each parameter including the alertops_list_users dependency for user_name.

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 opens with a strong verb+resource pair ('List a specific user's on-call schedule') and immediately scopes it by date range and a 3-month maximum. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alertops_get_group_schedule and alertops_get_oncall_now, which target different schedules.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite for using the tool: the username must come from alertops_list_users, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable in a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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