scheduler_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context that 'cloud' targets the hosted scheduler versus the local machine, and it clarifies that the daily-report action is handled by another tool. It doesn't disclose response behavior, pagination, or any limits, but this is acceptable for a read-only tool with an output schema present.

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 a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight argument list. Each line in the list adds necessary information with no fluff. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan the purpose and immediately find the parameter semantics.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only safety, the description's remaining job is to define the parameters and scope—which it does completely. The only possible gap, the exact return shape of each action, is presumably covered by the output schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden—and it succeeds. Every one of the five parameters gets a concrete semantic definition: action lists its allowed values, cloud explains local vs. hosted, hours defines the lookback window, and event_type/campaign_id specify filtering behavior. This is exactly the kind of compensation needed when the schema provides only titles and defaults.

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 and resource: 'Read the scheduler: status, logs, activity, diagnostics...' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and enumerates the sub-information it exposes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'scheduler' tool by explicitly stating that the daily report belongs to that tool, eliminating confusion.

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 explains the action parameter's valid values and the intended use case for each. It explicitly names the sibling scheduler tool as the correct alternative for daily-report toggling, providing a when-not-to-use note. However, it does not mention how this tool relates to other sibling read/status tools like show_status or campaign_status, so the guidance is not exhaustive.

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