get_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: it performs no external refresh and opens nothing. However, it omits staleness/freshness guarantees, permission needs, and return format, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

A single clause with the verb and the crucial negative constraint front-loaded, and no filler. The phrasing 'opening lectures' is slightly idiosyncratic but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential fact that nothing external is touched, but an agent still cannot tell what the returned schedule looks like or how stale the cache may be.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no param detail because none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (cached schedule), and the word 'cached' signals it is the non-refreshing variant. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_status or get_settings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without refreshing websites or opening lectures' implies the intended use case (fast, side-effect-free retrieval), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what the alternative would be. Usage is only implied.

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