List Schedules

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 known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or result ordering, which matters for a list tool with 18 optional parameters.

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?

Two words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is nothing to front-load because no meaningful content exists.

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?

With 18 parameters at 6% schema coverage, an output schema present, and many closely related sibling tools, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot determine filter syntax, pagination defaults, or how this differs from get_schedule without reading the full schema and guessing.

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 6% across 18 parameters, so the description carries nearly the full burden of explaining include, page_size, page_number, and the many filter_* variants. It provides zero parameter information, leaving operators like filter_name_eq vs filter_name_in vs filter_name_not_in completely unexplained.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_schedule, list_shifts, get_schedule_shifts, or list_schedule_rotations. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely from the name.

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