sm_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 only says 'Get match schedules' and mentions modes, but does not reveal pagination behavior, return format, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a practical use case. There is no wasted text.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain how modes interact with parameters like teamId and seasonId, nor does it indicate what the response will contain. It provides a minimal overview but leaves major gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does very little to compensate. It labels the mode values ('by_season', 'by_team', 'by_season_team') but these are already in the schema enum. Parameters like teamId, seasonId, page, and include are left completely unexplained, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Get match schedules.' It also lists the three modes, which adds specificity about how schedules can be retrieved. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'sm_fixtures,' which likely also handles match schedules.

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 phrase 'Useful for planning which fixtures to track' offers a general usage context, implying this tool is for browsing schedules in advance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sm_fixtures, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions.

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