schedule_get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying exactly what information is returned (schedule status, cron configuration, next run time), going beyond the bare read-only hint and helping the agent know what to expect.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the most important qualifier ('for a specific task') is placed at the end but still clear.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and what it targets. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides a complete description for taskId (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies a specific task, which adds a small semantic layer beyond the schema. It doesn't provide format constraints, but the schema is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('detailed schedule status, cron configuration, and next run time'), and a scope ('for a specific task'). This distinguishes it from sibling schedule_get_all_status, which covers all tasks. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understood.

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 for a single task by explicitly saying 'for a specific task', which contrasts with the all-tasks sibling. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when/when-not guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use, but explicit routing would be stronger.

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