list_scheduled_tasks

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, so the description does the real work here. It discloses UTC cron semantics, the manual-run implication of missing cron, the fallback to organization-wide tasks, and the warning field that must be relayed verbatim. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: action and scope first, then schedule behavior, then fallback and warning handling. Every sentence adds value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers the main behavior, fallback, and warning semantics well, but is incomplete for the full input schema because organization_id is never mentioned. With no output schema, the return shape is also left implicit, though the list behavior can be reasonably inferred.

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 description explains project_id and the no-argument case, but completely omits organization_id, which appears in the schema with no description. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was responsible for documenting all parameters and only covered one of two.

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?

States a clear action ('List') and specific resource ('Cowork scheduled tasks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scheduled_task by describing a list operation. Also clarifies the scope options, making the tool's purpose 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?

Gives practical scoping guidance ('Pass project_id for one project's tasks, or nothing for every task on the account'), but it does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as get_scheduled_task for a single task or explain when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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