Get Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without help from the description. The description adds nothing beyond the verb — no note on what the returned schedule contains (rotations, shifts, participants), no mention of permissions, missing-id behavior, or rate limits.

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 with no filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably over-trimmed for a tool with this many siblings, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a get tool sitting among list_schedules, get_schedule_shifts, and get_oncall_schedule_summary, the description does not clarify what scope of schedule data is returned, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces here.

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% and the schema itself already explains that `id` fills `{id}` in the path and warns there is no `schedule_id` argument, so parameter meaning is fully documented upstream. The description's 'by id' is a restatement rather than an addition, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (a specific schedule) qualified by id, so the agent knows it fetches a single schedule rather than a list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings such as list_schedules, get_schedule_shifts, or get_oncall_schedule_summary, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 use this tool versus the many related schedule tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record fetch counterpart to list_schedules.

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