get_chaos_schedules

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that only 'active' schedules are listed, which is a useful filter, but it gives no information about output shape, pagination, ordering, permissions, or side effects. The verb 'Liste' implies a read operation, but beyond that, the behavior is under-specified.

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, well-structured sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does and the schema documents the tenant parameter. It could benefit from noting the response format, but for a simple list endpoint, the essential context is present.

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 'tenant' is fully described in the schema with an example ('Nom du namespace tenant, ex: team-a'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Liste' and clearly names the resource: 'Schedule Chaos Mesh actives d'un tenant'. It also adds the parenthetical detail '(recurrence, type d'experience)' to clarify what kind of information is returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tenant_pods or list_argocd_applications.

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 the tool is for retrieving active Chaos Mesh schedules for a given tenant, which is contextually clear. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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