get_project_schedule

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the output fields but omits whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has side effects. There is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 very short and to the point, but the phrasing is awkward and somewhat cryptic. It conveys essential information in one sentence but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 no output schema, the description lists some return fields (phase, lifecycle, signed variance, reason, linked budgets), providing a partial picture. However, it does not explain the structure or relationships fully, leaving ambiguity about what 'linked budgets' entails.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions PID in the text but does not describe what PID represents or its format. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema, lacking detail on constraints or usage.

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 indicates the tool returns schedule data including phase, lifecycle, signed variance, reason, and linked budgets. It clearly identifies the resource (schedule) and the key fields, distinguishing it from generic project tools, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like schedule_breakdown or schedule_changes. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context for use, leaving the agent without differentiation.

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