list_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's behavioral safety is clear. The description adds the constraint of exactly one argument, which is helpful, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or ordering. Given annotations, this is adequate.

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 very concise: one sentence for the main action followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers all parameters and the constraint of exactly one argument. It is complete for a list tool.

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 compensate. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'all schedules on a controller' for device_id, 'all schedules at a property' for location_id, etc. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'List schedules matching exactly one filter' and enumerates the specific filters (device_id, location_id, zone_id, schedule_id). This provides a specific verb and resource, and the filter options distinguish it from sibling tools like get_schedule or list_devices.

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 explicitly states 'Exactly one argument must be supplied,' which is a clear usage guideline. It also explains what each filter does. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the constraint is sufficient for a list tool.

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