tempo_get_user_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response contains planned working hours per day, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how the schedule behaves for users with no schedule defined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first, with zero filler. It is efficient, though thin enough that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing return content and does name planned working hours per day. It does not cover what else a schedule payload may contain (holidays, exceptions, empty schedules), leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the response.

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 100% (accountId, from, to, and the compact/full view are all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description implies a date-range and per-user lookup but adds no format or interpretation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: retrieve a user's work schedule (planned working hours per day). The resource is distinct from siblings like tempo_get_worklogs_by_user and tempo_get_account, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many sibling user/worklog tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the account must exist or dates must fall in a period). Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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