List Schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic list operation, such as pagination or return format. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of any redundant information. Every word contributes to the 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the return type or pagination, but the operation itself is clearly defined.

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 schema provides no description for the user_id parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating it is an optional filter, which is critical for correct usage. It does not explain the format or exact semantics of user_id, but for a single optional parameter this is adequate.

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 tool lists schedules and optionally filters by user_id. It is specific enough to understand the resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like lyzr_schedule_get or lyzr_schedule_create.

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 implies it is used for listing schedules but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., schedule_get for a single schedule). The optional user_id filter is mentioned but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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