iqms_schedule_capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists slots, but fails to mention important traits like pagination, ordering, error handling, or what happens when no slots are found.

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 front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though some may argue it is too terse and omits useful details.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what a 'scheduled work-center slot' is, how results are organized, or any constraints (e.g., date format expected). The context provided is inadequate for full understanding.

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 schema has 50% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. It reinforces that start_date and end_date define the date range, but does not explain work_center (which is optional but has no description) or limit (purpose, default, max).

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 (list), resource (scheduled work-center slots), and scope (within a date range). It effectively distinguishes the tool from its siblings, none of which focus on capacity or scheduling.

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 the tool should be used to retrieve slots by date range, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. Usage is inferred but not clarified.

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