sigma_list_materialization_schedules

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral trait beyond the straightforward 'List' action.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the action. However, it is extremely terse and omits contextual details that could aid tool selection.

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 domain-specific term 'materialization schedules' and the existence of closely related sibling tools (e.g., sigma_list_workbook_schedules), the description is not sufficiently complete. It lacks necessary context to disambiguate from similar operations, despite having an output schema and annotations.

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 schema has one parameter, workbook_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a workbook' adds little beyond what the parameter name already implies, and it does not clarify the expected format or meaning of the ID.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('materialization schedules for a workbook'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_schedules, which deals with a different schedule type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as sigma_list_workbook_schedules or sigma_get_materialization_job. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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