list_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: 'Raises when a code location is unavailable rather than returning a partial list that could be mistaken for the complete set of schedules.' However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though listing implies it) and does not mention how the 'env' parameter affects results, which is a behavioral gap.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, lists output fields, gives usage context, names an alternative, and ends with an error behavior note. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff. It is slightly longer than necessary but the structure makes it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's main purpose, usage, and an error condition. It also lists return fields, which is helpful even though the output schema exists. However, it omits any explanation of the 'env' parameter, which is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter. Additionally, it does not mention pagination or result limits, but that may be covered by the output schema. Overall, the description is incomplete because the sole parameter is undocumented.

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 has one parameter, 'env', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions 'env'. An agent is left without any indication of what 'env' does or how to use it (e.g., environment filter, context selector). Since the schema only provides type information (string or null), the description completely fails to add meaning to the only parameter.

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's purpose: 'List all schedules with their status, cron expression, target job, and next tick.' It specifies the resource (schedules) and the action (list) and enumerates key output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sensors or list_jobs, which target different resource types.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'to check which schedules are active, verify cron timing, or find schedules that are stopped and might need attention.' It also tells the agent when to use an alternative: 'If a schedule is RUNNING but jobs aren't executing, use get_tick_history to inspect recent ticks for errors.' This is a clear routing decision with no ambiguity.

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