List Work Schedules

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable constraints (20-user limit, 3-month max span) and clarifies the canonical user_key requirement, going beyond annotation details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and adding a useful tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 list operation with robust schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers essential limits and input preparation. It does not describe the exact output format, but that is largely inherent for such a tool and not strictly necessary.

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 already describes all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting the 3-month span limit and recommending user_resolve_keys for parameter preparation, which enhances schema information.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('schedule and workload details'), while also specifying scope ('up to 20 users within a 3-month span'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on workitems or views.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (listing schedules/workload for users) and offers practical prerequisite guidance (use user_resolve_keys first). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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