list_maintenance_windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that status is server-computed and that nextOccurrences are concrete activations, adding behavioral context beyond a simple 'list' statement. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable detail about computed fields without 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?

For a simple list tool with full parameter documentation, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned (maintenance windows with computed status and nextOccurrences) and the optional filter, and the lack of an output schema is adequately compensated by the clear return-value description.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the status filter by listing its values, but it adds no new meaning for limit or status beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('maintenance windows'), and scopes it to the organization. It also clarifies the optional status filter and highlights two important fields, distinguishing it from single-window operations like get_maintenance_window.

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?

It clearly states this is a list operation with an optional status filter, and the schema documents the filter values. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_maintenance_window, but the list-versus-get distinction is evident from the tool name and sibling set.

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