List Test Schedules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds value by stating the scheduleId-vs-testSuiteId conditional behavior and the required project context. It does not over-promise or contradict the annotation, and the mention of returned fields helps set expectations despite the absence of an output schema.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and returned fields come first, the single-schedule alternative second, and the prerequisite third. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main call modes and return content. The only minor gap is not stating the behavior when both scheduleId and testSuiteId are supplied, but the schema and conditional wording largely disambiguate this.

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 already covers all four parameters with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful overlap semantics: passing scheduleId makes testSuiteId unnecessary, which clarifies the relationship between the optional parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('schedules of a test suite') and identifies the key returned fields (cron expression, timezone, next run time). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_test_suites and list_test_runs, and the scheduleId alternative is explicitly described.

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 explicit usage context: list schedules for a suite, or pass scheduleId to get a single schedule and drop the testSuiteId requirement. It also notes that project context is required. It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling list tools, but the within-tool routing guidance is strong.

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