list-schedules

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the scope ('for the authenticated user') and that it lists all schedules, but does not mention pagination, ordering, return format, or whether inactive schedules are included. It is minimally informative but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence (8 words) that states the action, resource, and scope without any filler. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and scope. However, it does not describe the return shape or behavior when no schedules exist, which the absence of an output schema leaves uncommunicated. Slight gap, but acceptable for a simple list operation.

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 the input schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related details, which is acceptable since there is nothing to document.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('availability schedules'), and the applicable scope ('for the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from singular get-schedule and resource-different list-bookings.

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 get-schedule, create-schedule, or list-bookings. The intended use is implied by the action word 'list', but there is no explicit or even contextual comparison to siblings.

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