lakeview_schedule_get

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already declares the tool as safe and read-only. The description's 'Get' verb aligns with that. However, beyond this, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, authorization needs). With annotations carrying the safety profile, a score of 3 reflects adequate but unexceptional transparency.

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 sentence, making it extremely concise. Every word contributes to the purpose. However, it is perhaps too brief; slightly more context (e.g., 'by IDs') could improve without bloat. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, output schema present, readOnlyHint annotation), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core action and resource. It could hint at usage patterns or prerequisites, but for a straightforward getter, the provided information suffices.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a Lakeview dashboard schedule'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and update, leaving no ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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