vast_list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all VAST schedules' without mentioning pagination behavior, whether it returns archived schedules, read-only implications, or any required permissions. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the implied read operation.

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 effectively communicates the core purpose. It is not needlessly verbose, and every word serves a purpose. It could be expanded with context, but for a simple listing tool it is appropriately sized.

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 large sibling set and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the scope of 'all VAST schedules' (e.g., all schedules in the account, all schedules across campaigns?), nor does it differentiate itself from similar list tools. The description fails to provide enough context for a heteronymous environment.

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 covers both parameters (limit, offset) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since the schema already explains them, the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all VAST schedules'), which distinguishes it from tools that fetch a single schedule or operate on draft schedules. However, it doesn't explain what qualifies as a 'VAST schedule' or differentiate it from the related 'list_schedules' and 'draft_list_schedules' tools, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vast_get_schedule', 'list_schedules', or 'draft_list_schedules'. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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