get_scheduler_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying what status information is returned and that it reflects the current state, which is valuable because there is no output schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two brief sentences lead with the core action and resource, then detail the key output categories. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return scope. It could be more precise about the exact shape of jobs/statistics, but it gives enough for an agent to invoke it and interpret the general response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema adds no burden, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not omit anything relevant.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and identifies the resource ('SchedulerService') and the exact kind of information provided (active jobs, upcoming executions, statistics). It clearly distinguishes this as a status/observation tool among the large set of scheduler, trigger, and health-related siblings.

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 the tool is for checking scheduler health and activity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_tenant_health, list_triggers, or list_trigger_executions. There is no when/when-not guidance, but the intended context is reasonably clear from the content.

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