get_maintenance_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but lacks explicit statements about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format. 'Full details' is vague.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, eight words) and front-loaded. It avoids fluff but could be slightly expanded to include parameter or usage hints without losing efficiency.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the essential purpose and identification method. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation but is inferable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description mentions 'by ID', providing minimal context. However, it does not elaborate on the format, source, or validation rules for the window_id parameter, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 'Get a single maintenance window by ID with full details' clearly specifies the verb (get), resource (maintenance window), and selection method (by ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_maintenance_windows (multiple), create, update, and cancel.

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 usage (when needing details of a specific window) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when not to use it.

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