list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists schedules and returns specific fields, but does not explain the behavior of the optional 'env' parameter or any constraints like pagination or rate limits. Some ambiguity remains about the parameter's effect.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: what it does, what it returns, and when to use. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present. The description covers purpose, return fields, and usage guidance, referencing a sibling tool. However, it omits explanation of the 'env' parameter, which is a minor gap in completeness.

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 only parameter 'env' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage) and the description does not mention it at all. Users must guess its purpose and how it affects the results, which is a major gap.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'schedules', clearly stating it lists all schedules with their status and other fields. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_tick_history' by mentioning a different use case.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section provides specific contexts: checking active schedules, verifying cron timing, finding stopped schedules. It also directs to an alternative tool 'get_tick_history' for cases where schedules are running but jobs aren't executing.

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