list_all_report_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the function name without disclosing how pagination works, what 'all configurations' encompasses, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the name, leaving the agent without safety or behavior information.

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 with no fluff, leading with the action verb and immediately stating the resource scope. For a tool with only two optional parameters, this is appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves ambiguity around the meaning of 'all configurations' and the return format. It is adequate for a basic listing action but lacks the behavioral and edge-case context needed for fuller completeness.

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?

Both limit and offset parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter details or constraints. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all report schedules across all configurations'), which distinguishes it from the scoped sibling list_report_schedules. The scope is explicitly broad, making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 phrase 'across all configurations' implies usage for a global overview, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_report_schedules or any other listing methods. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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