List agent schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes that results include cadence, next fire time, and last run, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether disabled schedules appear by default (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical and returned-field list each earning their place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the one optional parameter is fully specified in the schema. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint about result volume or ordering, which matters little for a per-account schedule list.

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 100% and the single optional parameter includeDisabled is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description adds no further meaning about that flag, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus specific resource (Super Agent schedules) with a clarifying parenthetical defining what a schedule is (recurring/one-off autonomous triggers), which separates it from sibling concepts like skills and jobs. It also previews the returned fields (cadence, next fire time, last run), so an agent knows exactly what this call yields before opening the schema.

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 listing nature implies the use case (enumerate schedules before pausing or inspecting one), but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives such as get_job or the related create/pause schedule tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated; usage must be inferred from the verb.

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