get_interview_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get interview schedule,' which implies a read operation but does not elaborate on return format, possible empty results, permissions required, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 that directly names the action and resource. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simple parameter surface.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not clarify what the returned interview schedule looks like, whether it could be empty, or how it relates to other application data. Given the minimal context, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 already documents applicationId as 'The Ashby application ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema's existing clarity. This matches the baseline for high schema 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's action ('Get') and resource ('interview schedule for an application'), making the primary purpose easy to understand. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_application or list_candidate_applications, which might also surface interview-related data, so it misses the top mark for sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_application or list_candidate_applications. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues beyond what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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