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 behavioral burden, but it only implies a read operation. It does not disclose authentication needs, pagination behavior, return shape, or how panel/clientKey/baseUrl overrides affect the request.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is terse, but that terseness is efficient rather than padded.

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?

The tool has five parameters, including required server and several override options, plus no annotations or output schema. A one-sentence description is not enough to explain scoping, return values, or the role of the panel and API key overrides.

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 coverage is high at 80%, and the schema already documents the optional panel and override parameters. The description adds only the notion that schedules belong to a server and does not clarify the required server parameter or the override semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 tasks') scoped to a server, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like schedule_get or explain whether it returns full schedule details or only a summary.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus schedule_get, schedule_execute, or the task-level schedule tools. The agent can infer that it lists schedules, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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