get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided and the description carries the full transparency burden. The phrase 'Get details' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose error behavior, return shape, authentication needs, or whether the schedule is draft/live.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the core purpose efficiently.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but doesn't explain what fields/details will be returned or how errors are signaled. It doesn't distinguish the schedule domain among multiple sibling schedule tools.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Schedule ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 retrieves details for a single schedule, using a specific noun and scope ('specific schedule'). It distinguishes from list_schedules by implying single-item retrieval, though it doesn't name sibling getters for other schedule types (e.g., draft_get_schedule, 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 on when to use this tool versus alternative schedule tools such as list_schedules, create_schedule, or draft_get_schedule. The context is implied by the name and description but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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