bgi_schedule_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('只读') and lists the informational content returned, which is helpful. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, error behavior, or output structure in detail beyond the content list.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and read-only nature before enumerating the returned data. It is dense but every clause contributes to describing the tool's scope, with no filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it enumerates the categories of information returned. It does not explain how the data is structured or any caveats, but it covers enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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, so the baseline score is 4 per the rules. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 it provides a read-only schedule and run overview, and enumerates specific fields (trigger times, last/next run, return code, RunLevel, log tail, one-dragon config, etc.). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bgi_status or bgi_results, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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 tool versus alternatives such as bgi_status, bgi_results, or bgi_run_task_progress. The 'read-only' label implies a safe read operation, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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