Get scheduling preferences

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses an important behavioral trait: if never configured, it returns defaults (Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00, no lunch, no buffer) and notes these are only a guess that should be confirmed with the user. This adds significant context an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

The description is compact and well structured: it leads with the operation and resource, then gives when-to-use guidance, then explains the default-value behavior. Every sentence contributes useful, non-redundant information.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent why and when to call it, what data to expect, and how to handle the unconfigured default case. No critical guidance 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description still helps by listing the data fields returned (working hours, lunch, buffers, focus), giving the agent a clear sense of what it will receive despite the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('the user's scheduling preferences'), and enumerates the exact fields returned: working hours, lunch, buffers, and focus. This naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like set_preferences, which writes rather than reads.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Consult this before proposing meeting times or hunting for focus blocks, rather than assuming a nine-to-five.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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