AgentCron

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the action stops all future executions immediately, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., whether the schedule is deleted, if it's reversible) and does not mention ownership verification requirements despite the agent_id parameter.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 cancellation tool, the description covers the core functionality and immediate effect. Given no output schema and no annotations, it could be more complete by mentioning ownership verification or behavior for inactive schedules, but it remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with both parameters already described (schedule_id as 'Schedule UUID to cancel' and agent_id as 'Agent ID for ownership verification'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Cancel'), the resource ('an active cron schedule'), and the effect ('stop all future executions immediately'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_task (create) and check_schedule (inspect), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: when you need to stop future executions of a schedule, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can differentiate it from other schedule-related tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned information (status, next run, count) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or permissions. The verb 'check' implies safety, but it's not explicitly stated.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output aspects. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks error-condition details, but for a status-check tool with no side effects, it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter explanation beyond what the schema already provides; the schema itself gives meaningful descriptions for both parameters.

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 checks cron schedule status with specific aspects: active, next run time, and execution count. This distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_schedule, schedule_task, and get_execution_history.

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 usage for checking schedule status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_execution_history for detailed past runs). It gives context but no exclusions or direct comparisons.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates that the operation is read-only via the word 'View' and hints at return content, but it does not explicitly discuss safety, side effects, or limitations beyond 'recent'. The lack of an output schema means the description is the only source for expected response shape, which it partially covers.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output attributes. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the dash introduces the return details economically.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it views, the scope (per schedule), and key response elements. It doesn't explain the response structure or pagination beyond the limit param, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity, this is sufficient.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully — schedule_id is a UUID and limit has a default and maximum. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the word 'recent', which is already reflected in the limit parameter. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('View') with a clear resource ('execution history') and scope ('for a schedule'), and lists the key content (status codes, response previews, timing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_schedule, check_schedule, and schedule_task.

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 by the name and description — it's for viewing past executions — but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The sibling context helps but the description itself does not elaborate.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: the schedule is persistent and runs even after the session ends, which is valuable. But it does not describe what happens on creation (e.g., whether a schedule ID is returned), any authentication requirements, or how to manage/stop the schedule. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or boilerplate text. It is concise and structured well.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides an adequate high-level overview: what it does, when it runs, and the key inputs (URL, frequency, duration). It does not mention return values or error cases, but those are not expected without an output schema. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is reasonably complete for a scheduling creation 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 schema has 100% coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level mapping ('how often' and 'how long') that aligns with interval_minutes and duration_days, but it does not provide any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema already states. No parameters are left unexplained, but the description adds minimal value here.

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 registers a persistent cron schedule, using a specific verb ('Register') and a clear resource ('persistent cron schedule'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (cancel_schedule, check_schedule, get_execution_history) by focusing on the creation/registration aspect.

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 usage for recurring tasks that continue after the session ends, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools (like check_schedule or cancel_schedule) or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The use case is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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