get_scheduled_messages

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 is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds useful context that only messages not yet sent are returned, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains no redundant or extraneous words.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and the key filter (only unsent scheduled messages). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or result details, but these may be covered by the output schema. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 schema has one required parameter 'chat' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'в чате' (in the chat), which provides a hint that the parameter refers to the chat context, but it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., chat ID vs. username) or any constraints beyond what the schema's anyOf integer/string shows. This adds minimal value beyond the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Список отложенных сообщений в чате' (List of scheduled messages in the chat), specifying the action (list) and the resource (scheduled messages). The qualifier '(которые ещё не отправлены)' (which have not been sent yet) adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_scheduled_now or delete_scheduled.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to list unsent scheduled messages in a chat. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_history or search_messages, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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