List schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (cadence, amount, due date, status) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or the behavior when the optional status filter is used. For a simple read-only list operation this is adequate, but it leaves some behavioral details unstated.

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?

A single sentence that packs the entire output contract into a readable form with zero filler. The key output fields are front-loaded and each word 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 straightforward list operation with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what the tool returns. It would be more complete if it explicitly connected the status parameter to filtering, but the schema's enum makes that inferable. The lack of pagination/ordering details is a minor gap for this simple tool.

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 optional status parameter with an enum, but the description never explains that this parameter filters results by status. It mentions 'status (active or paused)' only as part of the output, which could mislead an agent into thinking the parameter is merely echoed in results. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify the parameter's role.

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 states the tool returns every schedule and enumerates the exact fields included (cadence, per-period amount, next due date, status). This clearly identifies the resource and the nature of the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from schedule_get or schedule_upcoming, but the phrase 'Every schedule' strongly signals this is the list-all tool.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it returns all schedules with specific fields. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the tool's name and the 'Every schedule' wording provide enough context for an agent to know when to use it versus schedule_get or schedule_upcoming. A brief mention of alternatives would earn a 5, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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