list_timers

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful behavioral detail that the output includes next-run times, but says nothing about output format or scope-dependent behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the output detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Annotations cover the tool's safety profile well, but the required 'scope' parameter is unexplained and no output schema exists. The description is too sparse to let an agent construct a valid call or interpret results beyond 'next run.'

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not: the required 'scope' parameter is entirely unexplained, and 'filter' is also left ambiguous. An agent cannot tell what values to supply or what each parameter controls.

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 systemd timers', and adds the key output detail 'when they next run.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_services or list_jobs, which target different system resources.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever timer schedules or next-run times are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource 'systemd timers' is sufficiently specific to route an agent correctly.

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