delimit_content_schedule

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

Despite no annotations, the description declares 'Side effects: read-only' and names the internal function call. It provides a clear return structure overview, ensuring the agent understands the tool is safe and non-mutating.

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 concisely structured with clear sections (description, when to use/not use, sibling contrast, side effects, args, returns). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral notes, and return structure, making it complete and self-sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, and the description explicitly states 'Args: None.' Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description adds no unnecessary detail, fulfilling the baseline with perfect clarity.

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 clearly states 'View the upcoming content schedule (queued + pending + recent)' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating what it is not for (publish, manage queue) and names the alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('inspect what's queued...') and when-not-to-use ('to actually publish' or 'manage the content queue') scenarios, and contrasts sibling behavior ('delimit_content_queue mutates queue state; this reads').

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