schedule_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares read-only semantics, states the default window (7 days), explains that durations are derived as a median of past runs, and names the specific hazard classes it warns about (drive-generation overlaps, pool overlaps, P5 maintenance restart window, pools with no appendable tape). What is missing is any note on cost/latency for long windows or how warnings are surfaced in the response.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose and scope first, then the returned fields, then the warning categories. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess at, and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, default argument behavior, the computation behind durations, and the categories of problems flagged. It is nearly complete; only the concrete shape of the response and behavior on invalid or extreme 'days' values remain unstated.

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 'days' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, supplying both the meaning ('next N days') and the default (7). It does not state bounds, whether fractional values are accepted, or the behavior for very large windows, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Read-only forecast of all enabled events' — and immediately enumerates what each forecast entry contains (start, expected duration, pool, drive generation). That is enough to distinguish it from plan-mutation siblings like create_plan or dryrun_plan without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this to look ahead at upcoming enabled runs and surface conflicts before they happen, and the 'read-only' framing implicitly separates it from mutating plan tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating an explicit when-not condition, so it falls one step below full guidance.

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