list_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the return envelope (schedules/count/application), field-level semantics, and the private-mode omission of the context field. It does not disclose pagination/limits, result ordering, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a listing tool in an API with login-gated siblings.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the layout is scannable: purpose, domain context, args, then returns. The Returns block is long, but nearly every field carries a type and a semantic note, so it earns its place, even though some of it duplicates what the available output schema already provides.

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?

Core invocation is fully specified: one required parameter and three optional filters with clear semantics. Missing pieces for a list tool are pagination/limit behavior, authentication prerequisites given the login/login_complete siblings, and differentiation from get_schedule. Return values are over-covered since an output schema already exists.

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 Args section fully compensates: all four parameters receive semantics beyond their bare type/title, application_name is flagged as required, and status gets example values ('ACTIVE', 'PAUSED') since the schema defines no enums. The only gap is that status values are not exhaustively enumerated.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('schedules'), and scope ('for an application from DBOS Conductor'). The follow-up sentence explains the domain concept — schedules automatically trigger workflows on a cron-based schedule — which helps an agent distinguish this from workflow-listing or mutation siblings like trigger_schedule.

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 distinguishes this tool from the singular get_schedule sibling or the schedule mutation tools (pause_schedule, resume_schedule, trigger_schedule) that appear in the sibling list. The filter documentation implies usage scenarios but provides no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use direction, and no alternatives are named.

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