list_schedules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' a list, implying a read operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no schedules, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure) or error handling, which would improve completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 schema fully documents the offset and limit parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('schedules'), specifying it's for 'automatic actor/task execution' which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_schedule' (singular) or other list tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_schedule' (for a single schedule) or other list tools for different resources. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, offering only basic context.

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