get_top_scheduler_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Get information') but never confirms it is read-only, states no permissions or side effects, and gives no indication of what the returned scheduler info contains. Minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Args: ctx: MCP context' line is boilerplate noise that adds nothing for an agent selecting or calling the tool. Otherwise the text is appropriately short.

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 single-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. It never explains what information is returned or how to interpret it.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add value by clarifying that node_path expects a 'TOP scheduler or TOPnet path', which narrows the expected input. However, it gives no format examples or path syntax, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('TOP scheduler nodes in a network'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the adjacent get_top_network_info / get_top_logs tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, but the resource is specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_top_network_info, get_top_logs, or get_work_item_states. The only scoping signal is the phrase 'in a network', which does not tell the agent which conditions select this tool.

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