get_posting_schedule

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the schedule:read permission, the user's timezone, the inheritance rule for groups without overrides, and the slot format.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by data format and permission details.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics: global schedule plus per-group overrides, slot shape, timezone, and inheritance behavior. It also states the required permission, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds helpful meaning about returned slot formatting and inheritance, but there are no input parameters whose semantics need explanation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the weekly posting queue schedule: the global schedule plus any per-group overrides.' The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as set_posting_schedule, get_best_times, or suggest_schedule.

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?

It gives context about what the schedule contains and a prerequisite permission, but never states when to use this tool instead of set_posting_schedule, get_best_times, or suggest_schedule. Usage is implied by the read-only framing rather than explicitly guided.

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