fleet_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does so well: it discloses the default sort ('failures first'), the hidden-by-default stock OS jobs, and an important domain caveat that cron does not log results so only the last start is known for cron entries. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits auth/permission expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the resource scope before the caveats, with no filler. Slightly packed, but every clause (scope, fields, cron limitation, default filtering) earns its place.

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?

For a zero-required, fully documented 3-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is returned, the default filtering, and the sorting. The absence of any annotation layer is partly compensated, though auth/permission context is unaddressed.

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 per-parameter descriptions already documenting all, target, and failedOnly, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the all=true behavior and the failed-only framing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a concrete resource (scheduled jobs) and scopes it precisely: systemd timers and cron jobs across every host. It even enumerates the fields surfaced (schedule, last run, next run) so an agent knows this is a read/list surface distinct from job_status or schedule_toggle.

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 rather than stated: the description clarifies default filtering ('stock OS jobs hidden unless all=true or they fail') but never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings like job_status, cron_logging, or schedule_toggle. No explicit alternatives or 'when-not' guidance is offered.

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