list_routines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the shape of each returned routine (pattern, start time, enabled flag, member zones), which is genuine context. However, it never states that this is a non-mutating read, and says nothing about pagination, ordering or result limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then details the fields. The parenthetical enum list is dense but each token earns its place by pre-explaining values the caller will see.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the job of describing return content, and it does so at a reasonable level of detail. The main remaining gap is the absence of read-only framing and any pagination/volume expectations, but for a zero-argument list tool this is close to sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate - baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and correctly so; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List watering schedules') and even disambiguates the resource as '(routine definitions)', which separates it from zone/device listings. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation is inferable but not explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' - an agent can infer this is the way to inspect existing routines. There is no statement about when to prefer this over get_device_status, list_events or the mutation sibling set_routine_enabled, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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