list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a read operation ('List'), but omits important details such as existence of pagination, sorting, rate limits, or whether the response includes full schedule objects or summaries. Given the simplicity (zero parameters), the minimal disclosure is insufficient for robust agent reasoning.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary action and resource. Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), this level of conciseness is appropriate and does not omit critical information that would fit in a similarly short statement.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and no parameters, the description does not mention what the output represents (e.g., user's schedules, organization-wide). It fails to clarify scope in the context of sibling tools like list_team_schedules. For a simple read tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for agent uncertainty.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description 'List all availability schedules' adds a scope qualifier ('all') but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 'List all availability schedules' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (availability schedules). It distinguishes from singular fetch tools like get_schedule and mutation tools like create_schedule. However, it does not clarify whether this returns schedules for the current user or across teams, which is important given the sibling list_team_schedules. The agent might need to infer scope from context or name.

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 over alternatives such as list_team_schedules or get_schedule. The description does not mention prerequisites, allowed contexts, or typical use cases. An agent would need to rely solely on the tool name to differentiate, which is risky when multiple list-like tools exist.

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