list_timers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scope word 'active' (only running timers are returned) and mentions remaining time, but says nothing about ordering, formatting, or what happens when no timers exist.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Nothing in it is redundant given the annotations.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the result, and it does so at a high level ('timers with their remaining time'). Slightly more detail on return shape or empty-state behavior would make it complete, but it is sufficient to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the description doesn't need to add parameter detail. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List all active timers') plus a scope qualifier ('active') and a hint at returned content ('remaining time'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like set_timer or cancel_timer, though those are clearly distinct operations.

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?

Usage is only implied: a read-only listing, so an agent can infer it's for inspecting timers rather than modifying them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no reference to cancel_timer/cancel_all_timers as complementary tools.

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