get_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds value by detailing the return structure (schedule proto contents, locations_and_devices) without contradicting annotations.

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 concise paragraphs with no fluff. The first paragraph states the purpose and output, the second clarifies the parameter. Efficiently front-loaded.

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, read-only, output schema exists), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and where the parameter comes from.

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 has one parameter with 0% description coverage. Description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Schedule UUID from list_schedules'), providing complete semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a single schedule and its associated locations/devices. Lists the components of the schedule (criteria, restriction criteria, etc.) and provides parameter context from list_schedules, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_schedules and get_device.

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?

Provides parameter guidance (schedule_id from list_schedules) and implies use for specific schedule retrieval. Could be more explicit about when not to use it or alternatives like preview_schedule, but adequate for a simple read tool.

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