schedule.list

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: default scope is the current conversation, all=true expands scope to other conversations, and the response includes IDs and revisions used for management. It omits details like ordering, pagination, or limits, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the parameter exception, followed by a practical note about returned IDs. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope behavior, and the key return fields (IDs and revisions). It doesn't mention result ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 explain the sole parameter—and it does: all=true means search other conversations, which implies the default false limits results to this conversation. The semantics are clear, though the default behavior is stated by implication rather than explicitly.

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 ('Read') and resource ('scheduled prompts'), plus a precise scope ('linked to this conversation'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling operations like schedule.update/pause/remove by framing this as the enumeration step whose IDs feed later management, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 useful guidance for the one parameter: set all=true to look outside the current conversation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., calendar.search, schedule.run_prompt); the intended usage is implied by the read/list framing.

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