Get the weekly schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds vital behavioral context by explaining that the schedule is a repeating weekly template, not dated events. It also specifies wall-clock times with no timezone and Sunday-first day indexing, which are not captured in annotations. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured metadata.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries essential information: the read-only nature, the repeating-template semantics, time and day conventions, and a clear usage directive. It is front-loaded with 'READ ONLY' and structured logically from purpose to usage, so the length is justified.

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?

The description explains the return shape (grouped by day, sorted by start time) and the crucial conceptual distinction from a dated calendar, which is essential for an agent to interpret results correctly. It also clarifies the time format and day-of-week indexing, and provides explicit guidance to call this before proposing new blocks. With no output schema, this provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter dayOfWeek with its range and Sunday-first indexing, achieving 100% coverage. The description repeats this convention but adds no new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the user's weekly schedule template, grouped by day and sorted by start time. It explicitly contrasts it with a calendar of dated events, distinguishing it from sibling tools like goalslot_manage_schedule_block. The verb 'returns' and resource 'weekly schedule template' are specific and unambiguous.

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 'Call this before proposing any new block, so you can see which windows are already taken,' giving a concrete trigger. It also clarifies the repeating nature of the schedule, preventing the agent from misinterpreting it as a dated calendar. While it doesn't name alternatives, the instruction is clear and sufficient.

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