list_timers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats structured data rather than adding new context. It does add useful behavioral detail about the return format (next/last run times expressed in microseconds since the epoch), but says nothing about permissions, empty results, or pagination.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The scope clause is appended naturally at the end rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the description supplying the scope enum values and time format, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly, with only minor gaps (permissions, behavior on empty results).

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it enumerates the valid scope values ('user' or 'system'), which the schema's bare untyped string property does not convey. It stops short of stating the default or whether scope is required, but the value domain is covered.

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 and resource ('List the timers of one manager') and specifies what the listing contains ('next and last run times in microseconds since the epoch'). It is unambiguous, though 'one manager' is slightly loose and there is no sibling that overlaps in resource to contrast against.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. Sibling list_units covers a related domain, but the description never explains when a timer listing is the right call versus a unit listing.

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