list_schedules

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any authorization or data-scope behavior. The 'stored' qualifier adds a hint that this returns persisted rules, not live state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, with an output schema and one optional parameter, but the description leaves the 'device' parameter's role ambiguous and provides no context about when to use it. For a low-complexity tool, this is a minor gap, but the agent would have to infer parameter semantics from the schema title alone.

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 only parameter, 'device,' has no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The description's phrase 'on a controller' gives a weak clue that 'device' refers to the controller, but it does not explain whether the parameter is a filter, how to specify it, or what omission means. With 0% schema coverage, the description should fully compensate, and it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('stored schedule rules (watering times)') plus a location ('on a controller'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices and list_zones, and from run_schedule which executes rather than lists.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when to choose list_schedules over get_status, list_zones, or run_schedule, and no exclusions or alternatives are named. The only usage signal is the verb 'List,' which implies a query operation.

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