list_recurrences

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context by explaining that recurrences spawn instances and completing an instance doesn't delete the schedule. This goes beyond a simple list statement, though details like authentication or pagination are omitted.

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 convey the purpose and a key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the core concept and a behavioral trait. Missing details like return format but not critical for a list operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.

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 tool lists recurring task templates, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks and create_recurring_task by focusing on templates. The added sentence about instances further clarifies the resource 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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage from the name and context, but lacks direct guidance like 'Use this to list recurrence templates; use list_tasks for individual instances.'

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