scheduled_queries_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the Instance Administrator permission requirement and explains that extended_view includes additional fields that may change. However, it does not mention pagination, default sorting, or the structure of the response, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core action, followed by key details, permission note, and a helpful example. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though the example block adds length, it is relevant and illustrative.

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?

The tool has a nested request_data parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, permissions, and provides an example, but it lacks information about response format, pagination, or edge cases like combining filters with list_ids. This is a moderate gap for a list endpoint with filtering capabilities.

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 provides an example request body that demonstrates how to use list_ids, filters, and extended_view. However, it does not explicitly explain each parameter's semantics. The schema descriptions cover some fields, but the context signal indicates low schema coverage, and the description's example is the only additional guidance. It adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get scheduled queries' and 'Return a list of scheduled queries.' It specifies the resource (scheduled queries) and the action (list/get), and differentiates from siblings like scheduled_queries_delete and scheduled_queries_insert by focusing on retrieval with optional filtering and extended view.

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 context on when to use this tool: to retrieve all or filtered scheduled queries, optionally with extended details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the uniqueness of the list operation among siblings makes the usage clear. It also states the required permission, which helps in deciding applicability.

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