Scheduled jobs

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

Annotations already declare this to be read-only and not open-world, but the description adds useful behavioral context: returned fields include next and last run, last status, and error, and it discloses scheduling rules (UTC, a few jobs per application, runs at least five minutes apart). It does not mention whether disabled jobs are included, but this remains a helpful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The returned fields and scheduling rules each add useful information, though the phrase 'plus the rules' is slightly less direct than it could be.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description gives an agent enough to understand what the tool returns and the scheduling constraints. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly say whether all schedules (including disabled ones) are listed or whether ordering is guaranteed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space documenting nonexistent parameters and instead focuses on what the returned schedule records contain.

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 identifies the specific resource, the application's scheduled jobs, and enumerates the returned fields (next/last run, last status, error). It implies listing but does not use an explicit verb or explicitly contrast with the sibling mutation tools add_schedule, set_schedule_enabled, and remove_schedule.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_schedule, set_schedule_enabled, or remove_schedule. The resource name implies a read/list operation, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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