get_task_schedule

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that current_iteration switches scope to the team's current sprint, but it says nothing about the top=300 cap, whether results are truncated, or what happens when team/project are omitted.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, which is good, but it never says what the tool does as a verb phrase and instead opens with a colon-separated field list. 'Remaining work' is stated twice in the opening sentence, which is sloppy for text this brief.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description should do more. It leaves six of eight parameters undefined and does not clarify default scoping behavior, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partly meets it. It explains current_iteration and gives comma-separated syntax with an example for work_item_type, but team, project, assigned_to, iteration_path, include_closed, and top are left entirely to name inference, including the unresolved question of scope when team/project default to null.

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 opening line names the resource concretely ('Scheduling view') and enumerates the returned fields: start/target dates, estimates, remaining work, overdue flags, and per-person remaining work. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name, though the retrieval verb itself is only implied and no sibling tool (search_work_items, query_wiql) is named as a contrast.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool rather than search_work_items or query_wiql, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The note about current_iteration explains a parameter's effect, not when the tool should be selected, so the agent must infer routing from the field list alone.

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