list_scheduled

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is established. The description adds the status scoping dimension but no further behavioral details like response format or pagination. This is comparable to the calibration example where annotations cover safety and description adds a scope constraint.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the purpose and scope.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and statuses. The schema fully documents parameters, and annotations handle safety. It does not mention the account filter, but this is captured in the schema, so completeness is sufficient.

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%, with both parameters (status and account) already documented with descriptions and an enum for status. The description repeats the status values but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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?

The description precisely states 'List scheduled emails' and clarifies the statuses it can show (pending, sent, or all). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_emails (regular emails) and cancel_scheduled (mutating scheduled emails).

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 clearly implies the tool is for viewing scheduled emails by status, which provides context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling list_emails is implicitly different.

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