list_scheduler_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned content (state, counts, timing, interval), which substitutes for a missing output schema, but says nothing about permissions, result size, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the implication of 'List'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with every clause adding concrete information about the returned fields. There is no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly sufficient: it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the fields returned. It lacks only any routing guidance versus the scheduler-job-runs sibling.

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% for the single optional 'schema' parameter, whose description already explains that omitting it searches all schemas. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DBMS_SCHEDULER jobs') and enumerates the attributes returned (state, run/failure counts, last start, next run, repeat interval). This implicitly separates it from the sibling list_scheduler_job_runs, which covers execution history rather than job definitions, though the distinction is not stated explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the closest alternative (list_scheduler_job_runs) is never named or contrasted. The purpose of inspecting scheduler job status is implied by the listed fields, so usage is inferable but not directed.

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