motion_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior of returning all schedules without filtering, and mentions the data included (weekly hours and time zones). However, it doesn't cover pagination, authentication, or other potential behaviors.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action in the first sentence and additional scope clarification in the second. No 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?

The tool is simple with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides essential information about what is returned (all schedules, work hours, time zones) and the lack of filtering. It could be more explicit about potential pagination or additional fields, but overall it is adequate.

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 single parameter 'operation' is fully described in the schema with an enum of 'list', and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving all schedules, with specific mention of weekly working hours and time zones. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that focus on tasks, users, projects, etc.

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 states that the tool returns all schedules and has no filtering options, implying it is for unfiltered access. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, it provides clear context for when to use it.

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