sysknife_list_timers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results include the next trigger time, but says nothing about ordering, disabled timers, or volume of output.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the resource. The leading 'Read-only SysKnife action ListTimers' partially restates the tool name and the readOnlyHint annotation, which is mild redundancy.

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 read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the key returned field (next trigger time). Nothing essential is missing, though notes on disabled timers or result ordering would round it out.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description correctly notes 'no params'. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('list all systemd timer units') and adds the scope detail of the next trigger time, which distinguishes it from generic service-listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming sysknife_list_services as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for inspecting scheduled timers, and 'no params' signals a simple enumeration call. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list_services tool.

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