list_maintenance_schedules

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the schedules_note semantics where items is UNKNOWN and must not be reported as 'no schedules', the rejection (not clamping) of out-of-range limit values, and the requirement not to loop on truncated. These are exactly the edge cases an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core listing purpose, followed by a caveat, a sibling mention, and pagination guidance. It is somewhat long, but with no output schema, the detailed envelope and pagination rules earn their place. Minor redundancy remains, but nothing is wasted.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers the return envelope, pagination mechanics, resource filtering, an important edge case about UNKNOWN items, and routes to the relevant sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to call and iterate this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable operational semantics: resource_id filters to only schedules for one resource, next_offset should be passed back as offset and iteration stops when it is null, and limit out-of-range values are rejected rather than clamped. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recurring maintenance schedules') and enumerates the exact returned fields (name, schedule type, recurrence, start hour/minute, duration, time zone, start, and expiry). It also distinguishes itself from start_resource_maintenance by saying the latter is for putting a resource in maintenance now, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly tells when to pass resource_id and names the alternative for immediate maintenance ('To put a resource in maintenance now, use start_resource_maintenance'). It also provides clear pagination instructions, including when to stop using next_offset, so the usage context is fully specified.

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