list_scheduled_plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, but it is consistent with the annotations and the simple nature of the tool.

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, focused sentence that states the resource and the filtering condition with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter list operation.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what will be returned — plans awaiting execution — without needing to explain return values or parameter details.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.

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 has a specific verb ('List') and resource ('plans') and adds a clear status qualifier ('currently pending their scheduled execution time'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recurring_schedules, which target recurring schedules rather than one-time pending plans.

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 implies when to use it — when you need plans that have not yet reached their scheduled execution time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as distinguishing from list_recurring_schedules or listing already executed plans.

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