list_tasksShow scheduled tasks, next run times, run counts, and measured platform cost metadata. User charge is $0.00 during the beta.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the kind of data returned (run times, run counts, cost metadata) and noting the $0.00 beta charge, which gives the agent practical information about invocation consequences.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the specific data fields, and the beta cost note is an additional distinct detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key details needed to invoke and interpret the result. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from get_task_runs, but this is not critical for a standalone list operation.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.
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 states a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('scheduled tasks'), and elaborates with specific fields: next run times, run counts, and cost metadata. This distinguishes it from create/delete operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_task_runs.
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 says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like get_task_runs. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this list view is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The task lifecycle tools (create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, list_tasks) are clearly distinct, and china_reachability is a direct one-off measurement while what_can_you_do is a meta helper. The only mild ambiguity is that create_task can create a watch_reachability schedule, which overlaps conceptually with china_reachability, but the descriptions clarify one-off versus scheduled.
create_task, delete_task, get_task_runs, and list_tasks follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but china_reachability is a noun-phrase measurement tool and what_can_you_do is an idiomatic helper phrase. The set is readable but mixes naming conventions.
Six tools is well-scoped for a scheduled-task server covering creation, deletion, listing, run inspection, a direct reachability check, and self-help. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.
The core scheduled-task lifecycle is covered: create, list, inspect runs, and delete. However, there is no update_task or pause/resume capability, so changing a task's schedule or configuration requires deleting and recreating it, which also loses run history. That is a notable operational gap.