List Automations (Action1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds that creation is deliberately not exposed, but does not provide additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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, zero wasted words. The most important information (two modes, read-only, endpointResults) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description reasonably explains the two modes and a key flag. It does not describe the return format or pagination beyond 'from', but the complexity is moderate and the description covers the primary behavioral aspects.

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 description adds meaningful context for 'kind' (explaining schedules vs instances) and 'endpointResults' (per-endpoint outcomes for one instance). For 'from', it repeats the schema's pagination note. Schema coverage is 63%, and the description partially compensates by clarifying key parameters, though some remain schema-only documented.

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 clearly states the tool lists scheduled automations (kind=schedules) or run history (kind=instances), and explains the endpointResults option. It distinguishes between two sub-functions with specific verbs and resources, and explicitly states it is read-only, contrasting with creation/running.

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 explicitly tells when to use each kind (schedules vs instances) and states that creating/running is not exposed, which guides against misuse. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for creation, but the read-only guidance and sibling-tool context imply the agent should look elsewhere for mutations.

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