list_report_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List schedules' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it returns only active schedules, pagination behavior, or access requirements. It is not misleading, but it adds limited depth beyond the verb.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It states the core action and scope efficiently, earning a perfect score.

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 and the schema covers parameters, but the description does not clarify how it differs from the many similar schedule-related sibling tools (list_all_report_schedules, list_report_schedule_generated, etc.). It lacks any mention of pagination or result scope beyond the config filter, making it minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent navigating a large sibling list.

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%, so all parameters (report_config_id, limit, offset) are already documented. The description's 'specific report configuration' echoes the required parameter but does not add additional meaning or clarify the behavior of limit/offset beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('schedules'), and scopes it ('for a specific report configuration'), which clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like list_all_report_schedules. The 'specific report configuration' phrasing directly maps to the required report_config_id parameter, making the tool's purpose 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 description implies a usage context (querying schedules for a particular configuration) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_all_report_schedules or list_report_schedule_generated. It lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, though the scope is partially implied by 'for a specific report configuration'.

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