coolify_list_application_scheduled_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only repeats the tool name and parameter description. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does and identifies the required parameter. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of scheduled task objects) or any constraints like whether the UUID must be for an existing application. For a bare-bones tool, it is functional but not fully complete.

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% – the parameter `uuid` has a description ('UUID of the application'). The description adds 'for a Coolify application' which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('scheduled tasks'), and the scope ('for a Coolify application'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `coolify_list_application_scheduled_task_executions` (which lists executions) and `coolify_list_service_scheduled_tasks` (for services). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid application UUID first), or when to use this over `coolify_list_applications` or `coolify_list_application_scheduled_task_executions`. The description is purely declarative without contextual usage advice.

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