list_routines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the contents of the result set — paused definitions and routines with targets needing repair — which tells the agent it is a full raw inventory rather than a filtered or health-checked view. No guidance on ordering or size, but that is minor for a zero-parameter read.

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, zero waste, with the resource and its scope front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and when to prefer a sibling. The only gap is the absence of any note on result size or ordering, which is not essential for a parameterless read.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description does not misrepresent any input.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('canonical local alarms and routines'), and adds scope detail about paused definitions and targets needing repair. It names get_routine_status as the contrasting sibling, so an agent can separate listing from status/history, though it doesn't differentiate from other list_* siblings like list_devices.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get_routine_status for execution and inbox history,' which gives a clear when-to-use-elsewhere condition. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use this tool in other cases (e.g., vs. update_routine), but the primary alternative is covered.

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