list_scheduled_jobs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'run schedules' as a behavioral detail but does not disclose additional traits like pagination, default behavior, or response format. No contradictions 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. There is no superfluous content; every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool is a simple listing operation with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of default limit or explicit statement that it lists all scheduled jobs, but openWorldHint covers scope. Overall adequate.

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 100% with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the mention of 'run schedules' indirectly hints at the scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List scheduled jobs and their run schedules' clearly states the action (list) and resource (scheduled jobs) and includes the relevant detail of run schedules. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_job_run_history (run history) and get_scheduled_job (single job).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no filtering context, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It simply says what it does without usage direction.

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