list_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by disclosing that only pending/running schedules are returned (a filter not in the schema), but it says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or permissions needed to read schedules.

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 tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical definition of 'active' is slightly redundant but clarifies an otherwise ambiguous term, so it 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about what comes back (e.g., pagination, whether empty results are possible) to fully guide invocation.

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?

There is one parameter (deviceId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully (including the example format). The description adds no parameter-level information, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a device's schedules) and narrows scope to active ones, parenthetically defining active as 'pending or currently running'. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_schedule_history, get_schedule_context, or list_devices, so the agent must infer which schedule-listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings such as get_schedule_history and get_schedule_context in the same family, the description never says when to call this one versus those, nor what prerequisites (e.g., a valid deviceId) exist.

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