List Maintenance Windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description's 'List' is fully consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: it returns windows across all scopes, includes cancellation ids, supports an active-only filter, and requires project context. It does not describe pagination or output shape, but this is minor for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 sentences carry the full purpose, the filtering guidance, and the prerequisite with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the relevant parameter hint and context requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a low-complexity read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering behavior, prerequisites, and even the downstream use of the returned ids. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with defaults and descriptions. The description reinforces that activeOnly means 'in effect right now' and mentions the project context prerequisite, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('maintenance windows of a project'), and the scope ('across all scopes'). It also clarifies the practical value by noting the window ids needed to cancel them. No sibling tool targets maintenance windows, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing maintenance windows for a project, with optional filtering via activeOnly. It also states the prerequisite of project context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools appear to overlap with this resource.

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