list_workflow_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 states the action ('List') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format includes (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List workflow schedules') and includes the key detail about filtering. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks essential context such as what the output looks like, whether it's a safe read operation, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'workflow_id' documented as 'ID of the workflow to list schedules for'. The description adds marginal value by noting it's for 'optional filtering', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('workflow schedules'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_workflows' or 'list_workflow_runs' by specifying schedules, but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools in the server.

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 mentions optional filtering by workflow ID, implying usage when schedules for a specific workflow are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' or 'list_workflows'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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