Explain a cron expression in human-readable form and show parsed fields. Supports @presets like @daily, @weekly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Cron expression (e.g. "*/5 * * * *" or "@daily") |
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 discloses the core output behavior (human-readable explanation, parsed fields) and adds preset support, but does not mention error handling, output format specifics, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation. This is adequate for a simple explain tool but lacks some transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 one-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the behavior is straightforward. It covers the essential context needed.
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 already has 100% parameter description coverage with an example. The description adds the explicit note about @presets like @daily and @weekly, which slightly extends the schema's example. Since the schema does most of the work, this is a baseline 3 with minor added value.
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 tool's function: explaining cron expressions in human-readable form and showing parsed fields. The verb 'explain' distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_cron or generate_cron, and the mention of @presets adds specificity.
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 intended use is implied by the clear purpose, but the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or provide when/when-not guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, only a straightforward statement of capability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: validating, explaining, comparing, generating, listing common expressions, and computing next runs. No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Names mostly follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (diff_cron, explain_cron, generate_cron, validate_cron). 'common_crons' and 'next_runs' are slight deviations but remain readable and cohesive.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cron utility. Each tool earns its place, covering the core domain without redundancy or bloat.
The toolset covers the full lifecycle of working with cron expressions: validation, explanation, generation, comparison, scheduling, and common examples. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.