run_scheduled_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it reveals that the background service normally calls it, that manual invocation is supported, that nothing-due returns processed=0, and that each due job yields a per-job result with status 'sent' or 'failed' plus timestamp or error. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and return semantics.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, invocation method, safety, and return format are each covered in a single front-loaded passage with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains input (none needed), trigger conditions, side effects, and the exact returned shape. It also links to list_scheduled_messages for ID provenance, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds context about what the tool operates on (due scheduled messages) and what the result shape means, which is the useful equivalent for a parameterless 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Process and send any scheduled messages that are currently due.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the scheduling, listing, and canceling siblings by focusing on execution of due jobs, and it references list_scheduled_messages for the job IDs it consumes.

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?

It explicitly states when to call manually — to deliver messages immediately without waiting for the next background service run — and reassures that calling when nothing is due is safe. It does not explicitly list sibling tools to avoid, but the automatic-vs-manual context makes the intended trigger clear.

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