get_top_scheduler_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a read-only operation, does not describe the shape or size of the response, and does not mention whether the node must be cooking, loaded, or inside a specific network context.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency, since nothing is said about scope or the required argument.

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 tool with a mandatory, undocumented path parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the path argument and what comes back. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess on both the call and the result.

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% for the single required parameter node_path, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no hint whether the value is an absolute path, a relative path, or a pattern, so the schema alone leaves the required argument ambiguous.

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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("TOP scheduler nodes in a network"), which is enough to place it near get_top_network_info and get_cook_status. But "information about" is generic and never says what scheduler data is returned (cook queue, work items, scheduling state), so the agent cannot distinguish it confidently from related TOP tools.

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, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the sibling list whether to reach for this or get_top_network_info / get_cook_status.

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