list_scheduled_maintenance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List all' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The simplicity of the operation partially compensates, but there is no extra behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the essential information without any wasted words. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool returns (all scheduled maintenance windows), and the output schema covers the return value details. No additional context is needed.

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 schema already provides full coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; the baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all scheduled maintenance windows'). It distinctly identifies this tool from siblings like create_scheduled_maintenance and delete_scheduled_maintenance, and from list_downtimes which likely targets unplanned incidents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is the dedicated listing tool for scheduled maintenance, but there is no stated exclusion or comparison to sibling tools. This falls under 'implied usage'.

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