aap_list_schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the return format (JSON string) and key fields (rrule, next_run, linked template), and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage guidance (e.g., no mention of when to list versus create/update/delete schedules) and leaves parameter semantics mostly to inference, creating clear gaps.

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 only says params are 'Pagination and filter options,' which is a high-level grouping, but it fails to define what 'search' matches, how 'enabled' filters, or any other per-field semantics. The field names are somewhat guessable, but this is not enough for zero schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AAP schedules'), and clarifies scope with 'for jobs and workflows.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling schedule mutation tools like aap_create_schedule, aap_update_schedule, and aap_delete_schedule.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to sibling tools for creating/updating/deleting schedules; the only usage context is the implied 'use this to list schedules' from the name and first line.

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