Show the routine profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the payload (fixed vs flexible fields), which helps the agent interpret results, though it says nothing about size, pagination, or freshness.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the content enumeration is front-loaded and the actionable 'read before proposing' instruction closes it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (times, windows, durations, energy levels). Combined with the read-before-scheduling guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and use it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema fully covers what little there is. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the routine'), then enumerates the exact contents (sleep/wake times, job window, recurring activities with duration, window, energy level). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like update_routine, reset_routine and propose_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?

Gives an explicit use condition: 'Read this before proposing a schedule so you can explain what is fixed and what is flexible,' which ties it to the propose_schedule workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the pre-condition is clear and actionable.

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