taskscheduler_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful scope disclosure — that root's tasks are included, i.e. privileged entries will appear in the results. It says nothing about auth requirements or result volume, so it is a modest addition rather than a rich one.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the resource and payload, the second front-loads the practical use case. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the scope statement comes before the guidance.

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?

With zero parameters, a full annotation set and an output schema that carries the return structure, the description only needs to establish scope and intent — which it does. The missing piece is disambiguation from taskscheduler_runs, which an agent choosing between the two task-scheduler tools would need.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filtering arguments that the empty schema does not support.

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?

States a specific resource (every scheduled and event-triggered task, including root's) and enumerates what each entry carries: schedule, next run, last run result and duration. That is far more than a restated name. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling taskscheduler_runs, which an agent would likely confuse it with.

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?

Gives a concrete selecting scenario — 'Use to confirm a nightly job (e.g. a backup) succeeded' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointer to taskscheduler_runs for run-level history, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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