basecamp_list_schedule_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'List all schedule entries' but omits that a schedule_id is required (per schema), which scopes to a single schedule, not the entire project. It also doesn't mention that filters (start_date, end_date, status) alter the result set, making 'all' potentially misleading.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the action. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though it could incorporate a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the mandatory schedule_id, the available filter parameters, or the expected return shape. Given the sibling tool basecamp_get_schedule_entry exists, more context is needed to avoid confusion.

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 80% (start_date, end_date, status have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond the word 'project' which aligns with project_id. It does not clarify the required schedule_id or how filters interact, but the schema partially covers this.

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 ('List') and resource ('schedule entries' / 'calendar events') and scopes it to a project, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_schedule_entry or create_schedule_entry. It communicates the core action unambiguously.

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 implies when to use the tool (when listing schedule entries in a project) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like basecamp_get_events or basecamp_get_schedule_entry could be relevant, but no exclusion or preference guidance is provided.

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