List scheduler agents

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: digests never auto-resume spend, snapshot, and may POST to webhook_url. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe the return shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the agent list, and no filler. The caveat about digest behavior earns its place because it prevents incorrect assumptions about spend resumption or side effects.

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-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it names the closed set of built-in agents and states the key behavioral caveat. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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') and resource ('scheduler agents') and enumerates the exact built-in set: publish_queue, analytics_digest, paused_audit, health. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling list tools and from x_ads_agent_set, which configures agents rather than listing them.

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 provides clear context: this is the tool for viewing the built-in scheduler agents, and the digest-behavior note helps an agent understand what these agents do. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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