get-oncall-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, yet it only states what the tool does without mentioning read-only nature, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is too minimal for an unannotated 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?

The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with key information. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as the purpose of the 'include' parameter.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation but lacks details on the return format, pagination, or how to effectively use the 'include' parameter. Given the absence of output schema and minimal context, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to since the schema is complete. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (on-call schedule), and the retrieval method (by ID) with an indication of what is included (layers and team information). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-team-oncall' which likely retrieves by team rather than by schedule ID.

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 (e.g., 'get-team-oncall') or when to utilize the 'include' parameter. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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