scheduled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose. It does not state whether this is a read-only listing, what permissions or auth are needed, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what scope 'of a chat' actually binds to.

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 six-word sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler, which is ideal for scanning. It is arguably too terse to be self-sufficient, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies almost none: no return shape, ordering, pagination, or scoping for 'of a chat'. For a listing tool in a crowded 60-tool sibling set, this leaves real gaps an agent cannot resolve elsewhere.

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 schema is empty, which normally warrants a baseline of 4, but the phrase 'of a chat' asserts a scoping parameter that no structured field supports, leaving the agent unsure whether a chat identifier is expected or implicit from session context. That unresolved claim lowers the score from the no-parameter baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('scheduled messages') in one clear phrase, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling tools 'schedule' and 'cancel', which sit in the same scheduling family, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'schedule' (create a scheduled message) or 'cancel' (remove one), and no prerequisites, state, or timing conditions are stated. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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