ds_list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does so by disclosing the merge history, the default behavior of workflow_code=0, and the effect of simplify=True (returning has_schedule/cron/release_state). It does not mention error cases or pagination edge cases, but for a read-only list operation, these are minor gaps. The behavior is otherwise transparent.

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 well-structured with a short intro, a version note, bullet points for behavior, and a clear Args block. It is not overly long, and each line contributes useful information. The v2.0.12 merge note is nice for historical context but not essential for operation, slightly reducing conciseness. Overall, it remains efficient and scannable.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all the essential operational details: what the list returns, how filtering works, the simplify option, and pagination. The output schema handles return value specifics, so the description need not repeat them. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain each parameter. It does: project_name, workflow_code with '0 = no filter', simplify returning a summary dict, and page_no/page_size for pagination. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific statement: 'List schedule configurations (optionally filtered by workflow_code).' It identifies the action (list) and resource (schedule configurations), and the optional filter distinguishes it from plain list tools. The merge note clarifies its scope relative to older tools, reinforcing distinctness from siblings like ds_set_schedule or ds_delete_schedule.

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 explicit usage guidance for the primary parameter: workflow_code=0 lists all schedules in the project, while a specific value filters to that workflow. This tells the agent when to use each mode. It does not explicitly describe alternatives among siblings, but the purpose is clear enough that a listing tool is the only read option here. The simplify flag is also explained with its output, adding contextual usage direction.

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