get-oncall-schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat read-only behavior. However, it adds limited behavioral context beyond annotations, only mentioning that results include layers and team information. No disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, or handling of invalid IDs.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope.

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 simple read operation with two parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is fairly complete. It mentions key return elements (layers and team info). However, it lacks details on error states or the structure of the returned object, which is partially mitigated by the lack of output schema.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description hints at what 'include' may do ('with layers and team information') but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., comma-separated relationships and example). 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 by ID), and the included details (layers and team information). It differentiates from sibling tools like get-team-oncall which gets on-call for a 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get-team-oncall or other schedule-related tools). The description does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or provide examples of appropriate context.

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