schedule_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the non-mutating nature of the operation ('without saving it'), which is the key safety trait. It mentions validation and preview, but lacks details on error responses or the exact return format, which would enhance transparency further.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of about 12 words. It gets straight to the point with 'Validate and preview/describe' and adds the key qualifier 'without saving it' without any unnecessary words.

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 complexity (9 parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It conveys the core purpose but does not explain what a validation failure or successful preview returns, nor does it mention how the schedule modes (cron vs frequency) are handled. The schema provides parameter-level detail, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters or their interdependencies, but it contextualizes them as part of a schedule configuration. The schema already provides sufficient explanations for each parameter.

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 the tool's function with specific verbs 'Validate and preview/describe' and identifies the resource as 'a schedule configuration'. The phrase 'without saving it' distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_set, which presumably persist the schedule.

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 when to use this tool: to validate or preview a schedule before persisting it. The explicit exclusion 'without saving it' signals that this is not for committing changes, but it does not name alternative tools like schedule_set, leaving the comparative guidance implicit.

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