List Schedules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose an important failure semantic: it raises when a code location is unavailable instead of returning a partial list that could be mistaken for complete. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, so it falls short of fully compensating for the missing annotations.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized into purpose, return shape, and when-to-use. Slightly redundant: the opening sentence lists the same fields (status, cron expression, target job, next tick) that the following 'Returns per schedule' sentence re-enumerates in expanded form.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage routing, and error behavior adequately, and its return-value detail is optional redundancy rather than a gap. The one real omission is any explanation of the 'env' parameter.

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?

There is one parameter ('env') at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no guidance on what environment values are valid, what the default null means, or whether it scopes the listing. The schema does not compensate, so the agent is left guessing about the tool's only 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 and resource ('List all schedules') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, cron expression, target job, next tick), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_jobs or list_sensors without opening any schema.

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' block names three concrete scenarios (check active schedules, verify cron timing, find stopped schedules) and routes the agent to get_tick_history for the specific failure mode of a RUNNING schedule whose jobs aren't executing. That is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it.

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