nexo_core_schedules_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating it lists crons that can be tuned without disabling. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, authentication needs, or output format. The minimal disclosure is adequate for a simple list tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or wasted space.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is being listed and the specific criterion (tunable without disabling). It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though domain-specific terms are not elaborated.

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 no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the action ('list') and the specific resource ('structural core crons'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like `nexo_core_schedule_set` and `nexo_core_schedule_status` by focusing on crons that are tunable without disabling.

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 implies when to use this tool: to list crons whose cadence can be tuned without disabling them. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, though the specificity helps differentiate from other list tools.

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