list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether results are paginated, sorted, scoped to a time window, or what permissions are needed. A read-style listing tool with zero annotation coverage and an empty description leaves behavior entirely opaque.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; the bilingual restatement of the name adds no information and every meaningful detail is absent.

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 listing tool with a required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description provides nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% and the single parameter robot_sn is documented nowhere except its title. The description does not explain that robot_sn selects which robot's schedules are listed, nor its format, so the one required input is effectively undocumented.

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 '列出版排 / List schedules' merely restates the tool name, giving a verb and resource but no additional specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_schedule_pre_tasks, get_schedule, or get_schedule_calendar, so an agent gains nothing beyond the name itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this lists schedules for a given robot_sn versus calling get_schedule or get_schedule_calendar.

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