list_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that disabled schedules are included and enumerates the returned fields (ID, keyword, location, sources, cron expression, enabled status, last run time), which is meaningful behavioral context given there is no output schema. It omits read-only/safety framing, permissions, and pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and scope ('all scheduled job discovery cron jobs, including disabled ones') come first, followed by the return-field list. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only listing with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the shape of the results. It is nearly complete; only ordering/pagination and access requirements are absent, which are minor for a listing tool.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to supply and instead describes what comes back, adding no misleading parameter expectations.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a clearly bounded resource ('scheduled job discovery cron jobs'), plus the notable scope qualifier 'including disabled ones'. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with the closest siblings (schedule_jobs, toggle_schedule, delete_schedule, get_latest_discovery_report).

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: the tool is for viewing schedules, and the 'including disabled ones' clause hints it is the comprehensive view rather than a filtered subset. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to use get_latest_discovery_report or toggle_schedule instead, and no prerequisites stated.

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