list_scheduled_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' communicates a read-only intent and the examples clarify what items are returned, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or permission requirements. It adds some useful context without being fully transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and examples, then defines the two parameters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list operation with only two required string parameters, the description provides sufficient invocation context: site scoping and accepted identifier formats. It omits response details, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, this is a minor rather than critical gap.

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 provides bare string properties with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: host is explained as accepting console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format), and site as accepting name or ID. This is exactly the detail an agent needs to construct valid calls.

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 and resource: 'List scheduled tasks' and gives concrete examples of task types (firmware upgrade schedules, speed tests). It also scopes the operation to a site, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling get_scheduled_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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 such as get_scheduled_task or search_across_sites. The description only states the scope and parameters, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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