get_notebook_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: error text for each failed run is included, runs are returned newest first, and notebook_id is revealed to be a code asset id. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or limits, but for a read tool this is well above the annotation-covered baseline.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence summary, then a short usage paragraph, then a compact Args block. Every sentence supplies either routing or parameter meaning; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return contents (cron, notebook, recent runs with error text). Combined with named entry points and a follow-up tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full burden and does so for all three params: schedule accepts a name or an id from list_notebook_schedules, runs sets the count and ordering ('newest first'), and environment selects a configured environment with an explicit omit-for-default rule.

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 one scheduled notebook in full') and enumerates the payload (cron, notebook, recent runs). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_notebook_schedules, which returns the collection rather than one schedule.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Call this after list_notebook_schedules to see why a scheduled notebook is failing,' and hands off the next step ('pass it to get_code_asset to read the code that failed'). The trigger condition and the alternative tool chain are both named.

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