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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the return shape: it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether refresh triggers a device round-trip, or whether results are cached. The per-region parameters note is useful context but is largely covered by the output schema.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the sentence stops well before the agent has what it needs.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be described, but with zero annotations and an undocumented 'refresh' flag, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently alongside set_schedule and get_settings.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'refresh' is never explained in the description — its default of false and the effect of setting it true are left undocumented. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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?

It names the resource (the stored cleaning schedule) and adds that per-region parameters are included, which hints at the payload. But there is no verb and no explicit statement that this reads the current schedule rather than modifying it; only the name 'get_schedule' and the sibling 'set_schedule' let an agent infer the read semantics.

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 call this versus get_settings or set_schedule, and no mention of what 'refresh' implies (e.g., re-fetch from the robot vs. return cache). The agent must guess the retrieval context entirely.

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