Schedule, next and last run, and the latest run of an automation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds only the REST path, not what the payload contains beyond restating the title. It does not clarify whether this returns null/empty for unscheduled automation, which matters for a single-id lookup.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the endpoint path is a compact useful anchor. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so there is little to trim but little substance either.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what comes back; it only lists the field categories in the title line. Given the tool's simplicity this is borderline adequate, but the return shape and not-found behavior remain unstated.

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 0% and the single parameter 'id' is a bare string, so the description must carry the meaning. The path fragment /v1/rules/{id}/schedule is the only cue that 'id' is the automation/rule id, which is useful but minimal and never states the format or source of that id.

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 names a specific resource (an automation's schedule, next run, last run, and latest run) and pins it to GET /v1/rules/{id}/schedule, so an agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the related rules_runs, rules_get, and rules_setSchedule siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this rather than rules_get, rules_runs, or rules_setSchedule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only routing signal is the implicit read-only nature of a GET.

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