automation_list

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

The description is transparent for a simple read/list operation. It explicitly says 'List' and includes the qualifier 'persisted local,' indicating the data source and storage nature. No annotations are provided, but the behavior is self-evident and unlikely to have side effects. It lacks details like filtering or response structure, but the output schema covers that.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point and provides the necessary information efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the core purpose and the 'persisted local' scope, which is sufficient context. No additional details are necessary for this straightforward list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics. It correctly mentions nothing about inputs, and the schema confirms no required arguments.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('persisted local automation schedules'), making it distinct from sibling list tools like journal_list or watchlist_list. The qualifiers 'persisted local' add specific scope, ensuring no 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusion scenarios, or sibling tool comparisons. It leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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