list_asset_schedules

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions return fields but does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints beyond listing. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, then a clear list of arguments and returns. No extraneous words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 list tool with an output schema (implicit), the description covers the return structure (success, items, error). It lacks details like whether pagination is supported or what a schedule object contains, but these are reasonable omissions given the output schema exists.

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 adds meaning to the sole parameter 'assetId' by explaining it as 'Asset ID whose schedules need to be listed'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this clarification is valuable and fills the gap.

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 directly states 'List schedules for a given asset' with a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_asset_schedule and schedule_asset_execution by focusing only on listing.

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 (e.g., list_checks, list_workflows, or other listing tools). The description only lists parameters and returns without context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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