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 of behavioral disclosure. It does note that a paused schedule reports no next due date, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only (though it is implicitly a list), nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or potential side effects. The description adds some value beyond the schema but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first listing the returned fields and the second covering filtering and a behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded with the most important information (the fields) and avoids any fluff. 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned. It also covers the filtering option and a key behavioral detail. The tool is simple (one optional parameter), so the description is largely complete. Missing elements like pagination or sorting are minor for a list tool, and the description sufficiently covers the core information an agent needs to call it.

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. The description says 'Filter by status' and explains that a paused schedule reports no next due date, which provides meaningful semantics for the 'status' parameter. It does not, however, explain the meaning of 'active' vs 'paused' beyond the effect, and it does not describe the default behavior when status is omitted. This is a moderate contribution over the bare enum.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'schedules', and enumerates the fields returned (id, client, cadence, per-period amount, currency, dates, status, next due date, auto_generate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_get (single schedule) or schedule_create (creation). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions filtering by status, which is a usage hint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus schedule_get, schedule_history, or schedule_upcoming. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. Clear context for the list action exists, but without explicit guidance, it earns a middle score.

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