list_team_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope, omitting traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, output format, or whether it returns schedules for all members. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise (4 words) but under-informative. It is front-loaded and efficient, but does not earn its place fully because it lacks context that would help the agent use the tool correctly. Conciseness without completeness is not sufficient.

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 has one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'availability schedules' are, how they relate to sibling tools like 'list_schedules' or 'get_schedule', or what the output contains. The context of team-specific schedules is implied but not elaborated.

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 description coverage is 100% (team_id has a description 'Team ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying what the team_id represents or how to obtain it.

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 'List availability schedules for team members' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('availability schedules for team members'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_schedules' (general) and 'get_schedule' (single schedule). The team scope is explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_schedules', 'get_schedule', or team-specific tools like 'list_team_bookings'. It does not specify prerequisites, team membership requirements, or 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.