Get Scheduled Publishes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotenceHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pending-by-default filtering behavior and the project-context requirement, which are useful. Still, it does not mention return format, pagination, or other runtime behavior, so the added context is moderate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the most relevant behavioral detail and a context requirement. Every clause 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 read-only filtered-list tool, the description covers required parameters, optional flags, defaults, and a context prerequisite. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap for invocation. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'project context' entails and how results are returned, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms that includeExecuted and includeCancelled control which schedules are shown and that pending is the default, but the schema already documents these defaults. No additional meaning is added for specId or versionId.

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 and resource: 'List the scheduled publishes of a version.' It identifies the operation and its scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_publish_history or list_test_schedules, but 'scheduled publishes' is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 explains the default behavior ('Pending ones by default'), the optional flags for seeing other results, and a prerequisite ('Requires project context'). However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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