Read Schedule Data

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing that results can be partial: a non-empty skipped list means incompleteness and skippedCount aggregates all skipped entries. That is genuinely useful context an agent needs to interpret the response, though it says nothing about rate limits or how paging interacts with mutation of the underlying schedule.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action leads, and the incomplete-result caveat follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is 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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be re-explained, yet the description usefully annotates the skipped/skippedCount semantics. Identification of the target schedule and document/process resolution are left to the schema, which is acceptable; nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 60%; document and process_id carry their own descriptions (including precedence), but offset and max_rows have no schema descriptions at all. The phrase 'with paging' acknowledges that paging exists without explaining offset/max_rows semantics, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 and resource: reading header and body cell text of a schedule, plus the paging nature of the read. It is distinguishable from siblings like revit_create_schedule, revit_view_summary, or revit_query_elements, though it never names or contrasts with any of them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'displayed' (read what the schedule currently shows) and by the paging note. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling reads such as revit_view_info or revit_query_elements, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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