List Micro schedules

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds context by mentioning durability, authentication, and the latest delivery state. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or how the linked project is resolved from the path, but for a simple list endpoint this is a moderate gap.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 one-parameter read-only list with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the object being listed and the included state information; only a small clarification about how 'path' maps to the linked project is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are necessary because the schema states the default and purpose of 'path'.

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', identifies the resource as 'durable authenticated schedule events', and scopes it to the linked project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like micro_schedule_set, micro_schedule_run, and micro_schedule_remove, which imply mutation or execution.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' and the tool's annotations, but the description leaves the distinction from schedule mutation tools to inference.

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