get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description meaningfully adds to that by disclosing the auth requirement ('needs a Download Station manager/admin account') and the degraded result when unauthorized ('otherwise only the flags are shown'). That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and then the operational caveat. Slightly dense in the first sentence's enumeration, but every clause carries information about what is returned or when it is limited.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description summarizes the key fields (enabled, alt rates, weekly grid) and covers the only real gotcha (admin account needed for the full plan). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline is 4. No parameter-level details are needed or missing.

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 ('Get the Download Station schedule') and enumerates exactly what is returned: enabled flag, limited-speed rates, and a 7×24 grid. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set_schedule (read vs write) and the other download 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?

The description implies the use case (inspecting the current schedule) and notes the admin prerequisite for the weekly plan, but never names set_schedule as the counterpart for modifying the schedule, nor does it state when-not to use it. Guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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