list_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond restating the endpoint path, the description adds nothing about return contents, pagination, or ordering, so it contributes little behavioral context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The REST path is somewhat redundant with a well-formed MCP tool definition, but it does not bloat the text.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly enough. Missing is any hint of what the result contains (fields returned, whether inactive schedules are included) or how it relates to the sibling list_template_schedules.

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?

There is one required integer parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. The embedded path '/project/{project_id}/schedules' implicitly confirms that project_id identifies the project whose schedules are listed, but it adds no constraints or meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 verb 'Get' plus 'Project Schedules' identifies the resource as schedules scoped to a project, and the REST path reinforces that. However, it never says this returns a list of schedules or how it differs from the close sibling list_template_schedules, leaving the agent to infer scope from the fragment.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick. The sibling set includes list_template_schedules and get_schedule, and the description gives no guidance for choosing among them.

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