skill_schedule_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists runs with filtering, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what side effects might occur, how results are ordered, or any performance characteristics. The agent has insufficient information about expected behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediate context. Every portion contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what fields are returned, default sort order, and pagination behavior (beyond what the input schema says). The description omits these details, leaving the agent with incomplete context for downstream processing.

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 coverage is 100%—each parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds the context that filtering is by 'skill or status', which aligns with the skill_id and status parameters, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'scheduled skill runs', with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_schedule (which creates schedules) and skill_schedule_cancel (which cancels). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used for listing scheduled runs, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as skill_list (which lists skill definitions) or skill_schedule (which creates schedules). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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