List Schedule Rotation Active Days

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about pagination behavior, ordering, or whether active days are returned relative to a date range. With annotations present the bar is lower, but a pure name echo still contributes no behavioral 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?

It is short and front-loaded with no filler, but that brevity is the result of saying nothing rather than of disciplined editing. As a single name-echo sentence it wastes no words yet conveys no information.

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 needn't be described. However, with 4 parameters at 25% schema coverage and zero usage context, the description leaves an agent unable to call the tool confidently — it doesn't even identify that schedule_rotation_id scopes the result set.

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?

There are 4 parameters with only 25% schema description coverage — only schedule_rotation_id is documented in the schema. The description says nothing about 'include' (what related resources it accepts), page_size, or page_number, leaving three parameters unexplained anywhere.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance at all on when to use this versus list_schedule_rotations, get_schedule_rotation, or list_schedule_rotation_users. The agent must infer the entire selection context from the name alone.

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