vast_get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether it is strictly read-only, requires specific permissions, how errors are handled (e.g., missing ID), or what the response structure includes. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single concise sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action 'Get details'. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is excellent conciseness.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, given the large sibling set with related tools like vast_list_schedules and get_schedule, the description lacks context about when to select this tool and what 'details' entails (full object vs. summary). It does not explain return values, but output schema absence relaxes that requirement. Overall, it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'id', with the description 'VAST schedule ID'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the concept of a specific VAST schedule. Baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific VAST schedule'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list operations by emphasizing 'specific' schedule, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_schedule' or mention when to use this variant.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this for a single VAST schedule by ID' vs. using vast_list_schedules for multiple schedules. The agent is left without direction.

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