Get Schedule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description 'Fetch a schedule by id' adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format, error behavior for non-existent IDs, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description carries little extra value.

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 a single succinct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It fully captures the tool's primary action in minimal words, which is ideal for a simple retrieval operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. Annotations cover the read-only and idempotent behavior, so the main gap is the lack of information about what the returned schedule object contains or what happens if the ID does not exist. However, for a basic get-by-id tool, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has one parameter (schedule_id) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by id', which clarifies that schedule_id is the schedule's identifier, but this is redundant with the parameter name. It does not explain the ID format, whether it is a UUID, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond being a string.

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 'Fetch a schedule by id' uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (schedule), clearly indicating a single-item retrieval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_schedule_list (which lists schedules) and lyzr_schedule_create (which creates schedules), as the 'by id' phrase implies targeted lookup.

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 this tool should be used when you have a specific schedule_id to retrieve a schedule. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like lyzr_schedule_list to discover the ID first, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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