List schedule groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool pages over all active schedule groups, surfaces each entry's kind and windows, and connects to policy mutations. This gives a clear read-only listing behavior, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or pagination mechanics.

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 sentences, no waste. Each sentence adds value: purpose, entry contents, and relational context. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple list tool: scope (active), entry details (kind, windows), and the broader use case (policy schedule resolution). No critical information is missing for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so only via the phrase 'Page through', implying pagination via limit and after_cursor. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but no explicit link or usage detail is provided for the cursor. This is adequate but not rich.

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 ('Page through') with a clear resource ('every active schedule group'), and differentiates from siblings like list_archived_schedule_groups and get_schedule_group by explicitly scoping to active groups and plural listing.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for listing active schedule groups, especially as a reference for policy mutation schedule arguments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'active' qualifier and sibling list_archived_schedule_groups provide clear context.

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