gc_schedule

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description explains the cron-vs-legacy conversion behavior and notes that legacy params are deprecated but still accepted, adding useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects for mutating actions (create/disable/delete/fire), return formats, or error behavior for a tool with many mutating actions.

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 with clear sections: actions, trigger types, and a detailed cron section with examples. The cron examples are valuable and worth the space. However, it is somewhat long, and the coverage of cron formatting could be considered slightly verbose relative to the broader tool's purpose.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action/trigger semantics well, especially the complex cron syntax. It's not fully complete — it doesn't clarify which parameters are relevant to which actions (e.g., what create requires vs disable), and the 8 distinct actions have significant combinatorial complexity that isn't addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaningful value for cron/legacy param semantics, going well beyond the schema's brief descriptions. However, many parameters (agent, task, issue, action_type, fire_at, cwd) remain documented only at the schema level with no elaboration on how they combine per action.

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 manages scheduled agent dispatches, with an explicit action list (list, create, enable, disable, delete, history, fire, tick) and trigger types (cron, interval, session_start, once). It uses a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes intent, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like gc_ticker or gc_timing which could relate to scheduling.

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 is heavily focused on 'when to use cron vs legacy params', explaining that cron is preferred and detailing exactly what the legacy params cannot express (day-of-month, month-of-year, ranges). This is strong guidance for the primary decision point in using this tool, though it doesn't address when to choose this tool over sibling scheduling tools like gc_ticker or gc_timing.

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