get_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The mention of 'filters' and 'details' is vague, and the description does not clarify that the response is a list or that parameters like `since`/`until` affect time ranges.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., separating the two modes). It earns its place but lacks front-loading.

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 the tool has 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the two main purposes but omits guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., not using `query` with `schedule_id`) and does not mention pagination or default behaviors. The output schema covers return values, so that part is satisfactory.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond 'by filters or get details'; the schema descriptions handle specifics. No additional semantics are provided.

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) and resource (PagerDuty schedules), and distinguishes two modes: by filters or by specific ID. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on incidents, on-calls, etc.

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 two distinct use cases (filtering vs. retrieving by ID), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use the tool. The 'set' parameter descriptions in the schema partially compensate.

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