get_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data (start/end dates, progress, etc.) and mentions optional critical path analysis, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists return data. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from return details).

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 complexity (returns multiple data types like milestones and dependencies), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return structure, error handling, or how to interpret the data (e.g., what 'progress' means). For a tool with rich output and zero structured context, more completeness is needed.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'optional critical path analysis,' which implies the include_critical_path parameter, but doesn't explain project_id or detail what critical path analysis entails. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema, failing to fully compensate for the coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get schedule information for a project in Lychee Redmine' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schedule information'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_project or get_projects by focusing on schedule data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., search_issues might also return schedule-related data).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project (which might include schedule info) or search_issues (which might filter schedule-related issues). It mentions the tool returns schedule information but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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