schedule_red_team

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'configure' but does not disclose whether it creates a new schedule, updates an existing one, or disables it. No mention of side effects, destructive potential, or required permissions. The behavior is too opaque for a configuration tool.

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 very concise (6 words) and front-loaded with purpose. While it could be expanded with one more sentence on usage, the brevity is not detrimental given the simple parameter set. Every word serves a purpose, but the lack of structure (no separation of behavioral notes) prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description is too sparse for a configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain the effect of enabling/disabling, whether the schedule persists, or how to view/modify it. Given the tool's potential impact, this is incomplete and could lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters (enabled, intervalHours) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. It does not elaborate on default values or input constraints, but the schema already covers these.

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 'Configure periodic autonomous red team assessments' clearly specifies the action (configure) and the resource (periodic red team assessments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'red_team_results' (viewing results) or 'run_self_assessment' (one-time execution), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for setting up a recurring schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_red_team' for immediate execution). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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