list_scheduled_jobs

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds that run schedules are included in results, but it does not disclose details like pagination behavior, response structure, or how filters (limit, query, active) affect output. The annotations already convey safety, so the bar is lower, but the description adds limited extra context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundant phrases or filler.

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 no output schema, so the description should help the agent anticipate the return shape. It mentions 'run schedules' which gives some idea, but it does not mention defaults, pagination, or the effect of the 'active' parameter. For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but leaves some behavior unspecified.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, active), including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'scheduled jobs' with the additional scope 'their run schedules'. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_scheduled_job (single record) or trigger_scheduled_job (mutation).

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 implied as a general listing tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like list_job_run_history or get_scheduled_job. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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