draft_get_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'details' but does not describe the return structure, potential errors, required permissions, or any side effects. For a read operation, this lack of context is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not explain what 'details' are returned. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description could have added more context, but the operation is straightforward enough that a basic description suffices.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a description 'Draft schedule ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a specific draft schedule', clearly distinguishing it from list, create, update, and delete operations. It also differentiates from non-draft schedule getters like get_schedule and vast_get_schedule.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draft_list_schedules. The description simply states what it does without any contextual cues or exclusions.

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