List Pterodactyl schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered declaratively. The description adds value beyond this by explicitly stating that mutations are 'not exposed by this server' — a scope boundary disclosure — and by detailing the semantic contents of each schedule entry (task types, payload, delay). No contradiction with annotations.

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 organized into three purposeful paragraphs: what is returned, when to use it, and its read-only boundary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each section earns its place. The first paragraph's field enumeration overlaps somewhat with the existing output schema, making it marginally longer than strictly necessary, but the redundancy is compact and aids rapid comprehension.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, output semantics, use-case context, and scope limitations. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% — the single optional 'server' parameter is fully documented with an example, a default fallback (PTERODACTYL_DEFAULT_SERVER), and a pointer to ptero_list_servers for valid identifiers. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, the description need not add parameter detail; it adds none, which is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List a server's scheduled tasks (the panel's Schedules feature)'. It further enumerates exactly what is returned (cron timing, active/running state, online-only flag, last/next run, ordered tasks with payload and delay), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope. Among the 20 sibling tools, it is uniquely identifiable as the schedule-listing tool.

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 second paragraph gives explicit when-to-use guidance: discover existing automation before assuming a state change was manual or before adding a new schedule via the panel to avoid clashes. It also states an explicit when-not-to-use boundary: creating/editing/deleting schedules is not exposed, and directs the agent to 'the panel UI for that'.

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