cron-collision-detector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects collisions/spike windows but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what the output format is, or how the horizon and bucket parameters affect results. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for an analysis 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how collision/spike windows are defined, or how to interpret the output. It is a bare-bones definition that leaves significant gaps for an analytic tool.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'multiple cron schedules' and 'time horizon,' matching the 'jobs' and 'horizon_minutes' parameters, but no further semantic enrichment is provided.

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 ('Detect') and clearly identifies the resource ('collision and spike windows') across multiple cron schedules over a time horizon. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'next_firings' by focusing on analysis rather than just listing next firings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus 'next_firings' or any other alternatives. The description implies use for analyzing multiple schedules but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

The description implies a read-only, pure computation operation ('Return...'). But with no annotations, it doesn't disclose details like timezone handling, cron format variations, or error behavior. It provides basic safety transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 tool, purpose is clear, but without an output schema, the description should clarify return format (e.g., JSON array) and any relevant edge cases (e.g., timezone, invalid expressions). It provides minimal but acceptable context.

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 50% (count is described, expression is not). The description adds the qualifier 'single' to expression but does not explain the expected cron format or provide examples. It insufficiently compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Return' and specific resource 'next N firing timestamps' for 'a single cron expression'. This differentiates it from sibling analyze_cron_collisions, which focuses on collisions between expressions.

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?

Usage context is implied—use this to get future firing times for a cron expression. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, especially compared to the sibling analyze_cron_collisions. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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