List scheduled threat auto-runs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context—no return format, ordering, or scope limits are disclosed. Since annotations cover the core traits, a neutral score is warranted.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and no extraneous words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 list tool with annotations, the description communicates the essential purpose. However, it omits details about what the response contains (e.g., scheduled run IDs, timestamps), which would be useful absent an output schema. Still, the low complexity makes it largely sufficient.

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 input schema has zero properties, so schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description offers no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 auto-runs for EV threats', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as cymulate_ev_threats_create_auto_run (which creates) and cymulate_ev_threats_list (which lists threats), by specifically scoping to scheduled auto-runs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_threats_list or cymulate_ev_scheduled_list. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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