Schedule status

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: it explains that expectations are computed directly from the schedule table and no configuration is needed, implying deterministic output independent of external setup. It doesn't discuss edge cases like empty schedules, but the added derivation detail earns credit.

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 two sentences with the primary scope front-loaded in the first sentence and a brief, non-redundant explanatory note in the second. Every clause adds substance, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields (expression, timezone, last observed firing, previous/next firings) and the data source. It could mention whether schedules with no recorded firing are included, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 schema fully documents graceMinutes with a default, min/max bounds, and a description, so the schema carries the parameter burden. However, the description provides no additional meaning about how graceMinutes affects the returned schedules, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: it provides every cron schedule pg-boss has registered, along with expression, timezone, last observed firing, and the previous/next firings implied. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like failed_jobs, stuck_jobs, and missed_schedules, which address different concerns.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as missed_schedules or queue_overview. The note that expectations are derived from the schedule table and require no configuration is behavioral, not a usage heuristic, so an agent gets no help selecting this over siblings.

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