list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and the example hints at the returned shape, but there is no disclosure of permissions, pagination, whether disabled/inactive schedules are included, or how results are ordered.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the example doing real clarifying work rather than padding. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies purpose and a concrete example of the domain object, which is most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around result scope (all schedules vs. active only) and volume, but they are minor.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents profile_id and points to list_profiles for discovery. The phrase 'on a profile' loosely corroborates it but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (time-based schedules) scoped to a profile, and the parenthetical example ('bedtime 21:00-07:00 on weekdays') pins down exactly what a 'schedule' means here, separating it conceptually from list_rules and list_filter_categories. It never explicitly names a sibling or alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the implied need for a profile, and no mention of the create_schedule/delete_schedule counterparts an agent might confuse this with. The reader must infer the usage context entirely.

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