list-fleet-schedules

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the purpose. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or what constitutes an 'automated fleet upgrade schedule', so the agent has no extra insight into behavior.

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 short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficient and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., schedule IDs, details, statuses). While the tool is simple and annotations provide some context (read-only, open world), an agent would benefit from knowing what information is returned to use with sibling tools like get-fleet-schedule or trigger-fleet-schedule.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because none exist. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 'List automated fleet upgrade schedules' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (automated fleet upgrade schedules). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list-fleet-agents and list-fleet-deployments by specifying 'upgrade schedules', but does not differentiate from get-fleet-schedule (single schedule) or trigger-fleet-schedule (action on schedule).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to list schedules versus create, update, delete, get, or trigger them. The description lacks context for the agent to decide between this and other fleet schedule tools or other list tools.

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