get_config_windows

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return unit ('in seconds'), enumerates the full scope (registration, cancellation, feedback, extras, skip windows, max date), and discloses the api_key fallback behavior to MESS_API_KEY. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss rate limits or error behavior.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by a compact list of included windows and one focused Args line. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 getter with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what is returned, units, and authentication fallback. It leaves only minor gaps such as explicit read-only confirmation and behavior on missing/invalid credentials, which the simple read-only nature of the tool makes non-critical.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter by explaining that api_key is an API key and falls back to the MESS_API_KEY environment variable. This adds semantics the schema does not contain.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return all system operational windows in seconds,' and enumerates exactly which windows are included. It is unambiguous about what this tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling getter tools such as get_meal_timings or get_capacities.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named among the many sibling tools. Usage is only implied: call this when you need config windows. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules.

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