list_device_scheduled_tasks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description is consistent with those annotations but adds little behavioral context beyond the per-device scoping; no additional side effects, pagination, or session requirements are disclosed.

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 a single focused sentence that states the action, the object, and the scope with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, which is ideal for an agent selecting among many tools.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the essential usage context. The output schema is present, so return-value details do not need to be restated, and the annotations cover the read-only and non-destructive behavior. Nothing critical appears missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single deviceId parameter, including a clear description. The description's mention of 'one N-central device' aligns with the parameter but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('scheduled tasks') scoped to 'one N-central device', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The wording also distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_active_issues and list_job_statuses by naming the resource and scope directly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scheduled_task_context or list_job_statuses. It implies per-device usage, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool instead of a sibling.

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