list_schedules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description reinforces it by stating 'Read-only operation.' It adds useful detail about the response contents, including 'whether background automation is enabled,' which goes beyond the annotation. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not mentioned, but the behavior is well disclosed for a simple 0-parameter list call.

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 two short sentences plus one brief routing sentence. Every sentence provides necessary information: what the tool lists, what it returns, and how to perform related actions. No filler or 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 0-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description provides all essential context: the resource type ('allowlisted interval schedules'), the exact returned fields, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add. The schema is empty and fully covered. The description appropriately focuses on what the operation returns rather than parameter usage, so the baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List allowlisted interval schedules.' It then details the returned fields (name, job, interval, enabled) and flags the read-only nature, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like create_interval_schedule and run_schedule_now.

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 explicitly positions this as the read-only listing operation and directs agents to create_interval_schedule for adding and run_schedule_now for triggering. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the relevant alternatives in the sibling list.

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