List scheduler agents

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds specific behavioral context: digests never auto-reply, they snapshot, and optionally POST webhook_url for Claude/ChatGPT/AdvisorPPC. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the nature of the agents being listed, which helps the agent anticipate what these agents do. No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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 short sentences with no filler. The agent names are front-loaded, and the digest behavior clarifies important non-obvious characteristics. It's concise and relevant, though the first sentence is a fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety. The description provides the list of agents and additional behavior notes for digests, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output. It could explicitly state the return format, but this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially complete. The description is not required to elaborate on parameters, and with 0 params the baseline is 4.

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 title clearly says 'List scheduler agents' and the description enumerates the exact built-in agent names (publish_queue, mention_digest, inbox_digest, health), making the resource unambiguous. However, the description is a fragment rather than an explicit sentence like 'Lists all built-in scheduler agents,' so it's clear but slightly implicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as x_organic_agent_set or x_organic_scheduler_status. It does not say 'use this to see available agents before configuring' or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the title and list.

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