list_auto_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 mentions a plan requirement ('Requires Premium plan'), which adds useful context about access control. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, return format, or pagination behavior), leaving gaps for a tool that lists data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all configured auto-posting schedules') and includes key details (attributes and plan requirement) without unnecessary elaboration. Every part earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (simple list operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, return values, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output, more context on what the list returns would improve completeness.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'profileKey' documented in the schema as 'Profile Key to operate on a specific user profile'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining when this parameter is necessary or optional. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all configured auto-posting schedules') with specific attributes (times, days, last scheduled dates). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_auto_schedule' and 'delete_auto_schedule' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_profiles' beyond the resource name.

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 provides some context with 'Requires Premium plan', which implies a prerequisite for use. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post_history' or 'list_profiles', nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred or excluded. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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