get_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get schedules') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with a single sentence ('Get schedules from a project.'), which efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure for additional details like usage or parameters, making it slightly under-specified rather than perfectly structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects or parameter semantics, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps in context.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3 as it's minimally adequate for a simple tool.

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 the tool's purpose ('Get schedules from a project') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('schedules'), but it's vague about scope—it doesn't specify whether it retrieves all schedules, filtered ones, or their details. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_projects' or 'get_todos' by resource type, but not clearly from 'get_project_details' which might overlap in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project_id, or compare to other tools like 'get_project_details' that might include schedule information. The description implies usage for retrieving schedules but offers no exclusions or context.

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