list_scheduled_posts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the notable detail that results carry stop reasons and a worker's last-confirmation timestamp, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what limit=100 implies.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the parameter hint. It is efficient, though the second sentence is purely parameter-level and could carry more routing information at the same length.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return fields need not be spelled out, and the description does hint at them anyway. However, for a list tool with a default limit of 100 and no exclusions stated, an agent still can't tell how to page through results or how ordering works.

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 for both parameters. It explains include_finished (finished/cancelled included when true) but leaves limit completely undefined — no cap, no pagination, no ordering implications — leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (読む) and specific resources (予約一覧, 停止理由, ワーカーの最終確認日時), so an agent knows this returns the scheduled-post queue. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_posts or search_posts_by_date, so the differentiation rests on the tool name alone.

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 only usage guidance is the include_finished switch, which explains a parameter rather than when to call this tool versus alternatives. Nothing says when to prefer this over list_posts or search_posts_by_date, or how to pair it with cancel_scheduled_post.

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