list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden—and it excels. It discloses pagination behavior (auto-walks pages, CTM caps per_page at ~100), the truncation warning, max_items semantics, and default filtering. This goes beyond the input schema and provides essential operational context.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose in the first line, then provides need-to-know behavioral details in a structured, skimmable format. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (paging, status filtering, multi-account scope) and complete lack of annotations, the description covers almost everything needed to invoke it correctly. The output-schema exists, so return values are handled structurally. A small gap is not documenting the exact format of account_ids, but overall the contextual need is met.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains status (possible values and effect) and max_items (raises limit, triggers truncation warning). It does not detail account_ids format or per_page beyond mentioning the CTM cap, but it meaningfully covers two key parameters and the overall paging model, which is the critical semantic for this tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List time-based schedules across sub-accounts.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and later differentiates it from the sibling get_schedule by referencing 'time-based schedules' and 'routing rules' activity windows. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Defaults to active sub-accounts only. Pass status="archived", "canceled", "paused", or "all" to include others.' It also explains when to raise max_items for larger accounts. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, it clarifies its own scope and behavior sufficiently for selection among the siblings.

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