sigma_list_report_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description simply says 'List', which aligns with the annotations, but adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination or filtering behavior. This meets the minimum bar for transparency without contradiction.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, read-only, and an output schema is present (as noted in context), so the description does not need to explain return values. Given the annotations and output schema richness, the description provides adequate coverage for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention any default ordering or scope, but this is not critical.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter report_id, but the description's phrase 'for a report' gives implicit meaning to report_id as the identifier of the target report. The parameter title 'Report Id' is also self-explanatory, so the description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('scheduled exports for a report'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sigma_list_workbook_schedules and sigma_list_materialization_schedules. The phrase 'for a report' narrows the scope to report-level schedules.

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 sigma_list_workbook_schedules or sigma_list_materialization_schedules. However, the description and tool name clearly imply that this is for report schedules, providing sufficient context for an agent to select it when dealing with report-level scheduled exports.

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