schedules_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add useful detail about the returned content (expression, time zone, next runs, paused state, latest run delivery records). It does not state that the operation is read-only in behavioral terms, nor mention pagination, result limits, or whether 'latest runs' is bounded. Reasonable but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single, dense clause with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the fields. It is a sentence fragment lacking an explicit verb, which slightly weakens immediate comprehension but costs no extra tokens.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so at the field level. It omits the scope of the listing (current project? emulator target?), any pagination or size behavior, and the distinction from schedules_run, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level. The description instead spends its words on output shape, which is the only meaningful semantic surface here.

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 names the specific resource (scheduled functions, citing onSchedule and pubsub.schedule) and enumerates the fields surfaced: expression, time zone, next runs, paused state and latest runs with delivery. The verb 'list' comes only from the tool name, but an agent can tell this is an enumeration of schedules rather than an action. Differentiation from the sibling schedules_run is implied by the name but never stated in the text.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as schedules_run or functions_list, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit read-only 'list' framing.

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