list_scheduled_jobs

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful pagination semantics: up to `limit` (max 100) entries starting at `offset`, plus a total count. This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent understand response behavior.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination details are presented in a compact, readable way. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list operation with output schema present, the description covers the key behaviors: returned fields, pagination, and total count. It does not mention edge cases like nonexistent queues, but given the low complexity and supportive annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 must compensate. It explains `limit` and `offset` behavior clearly, including the maximum limit, and the phrase 'in a queue' implies that `queue_name` selects the target queue. It does not, however, explicitly describe the queue_name parameter's format or required status, leaving a small 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scheduled jobs in a queue') and enumerates the returned fields (id, function name, scheduled time). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or get_job by scoping to scheduled entries in a queue.

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 intended use is implied by the description and the required queue_name parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_jobs or get_queue. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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