nexo_core_schedule_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description implies a safe read operation but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or idempotency guarantees. This lack of detail for a read tool is insufficient.

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 one efficient sentence (10 words) with the verb front-loaded. It is concise, though could benefit from slightly more information without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what 'composed runtime status' entails, what data the tool returns, or error conditions. The agent lacks information to properly invoke or interpret results.

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 input schema has a single required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description only reiterates 'one structural core schedule' without clarifying what the name parameter represents, its format, or constraints. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'composed runtime status for one structural core schedule', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nexo_core_schedule_set (modify) and nexo_core_schedules_list (list multiple).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention siblings or specify conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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