ghl_calendar_schedule_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the return content: 'rules, timezone, and associated calendars/users'. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, though no side effects or additional constraints are mentioned.

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 concise, with 4 lines covering title, behavior, endpoint, and OAuth scopes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint and OAuth details are useful but could be considered auxiliary. No unnecessary repetition.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter, and return details. Annotations handle side effects. Sibling differentiation is clear via the get-by-ID pattern. No major gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (1 parameter with description). The description repeats that the tool gets a schedule by 'unique identifier' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a user availability schedule by its unique identifier. The verb 'get' and the phrase 'retrieve a specific schedule by its unique identifier' precisely define the action and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like ghl_calendar_schedule_list, which lists schedules.

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 use when you have a schedule ID, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list or create. There is no guidance on when not to use or when alternatives are better. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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