list_scheduled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the verb 'list' reasonably conveys a read-only operation scoped to the current chat. It does not disclose the return shape, ordering, or whether already-sent or cancelled schedules appear, which are the behaviors an agent would want to know.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause contributes information.

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 read tool the description covers purpose and scope, and there is no output schema to require return-value explanation. A brief note on what the list contains (e.g., pending vs. past schedules) would close the remaining gap.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 (list) and resource (messages scheduled in this chat), and ties it to the sibling that creates those entries, schedule_message. It is clearly distinguishable from schedule_message and cancel_scheduled, though it does not explicitly note that it is the read-only counterpart of the pair.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of schedule_message and 'this chat' suggests it is used to inspect pending scheduled messages before acting on them. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of cancel_scheduled as the alternative for removing entries, and no exclusions.

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