Task Scheduler

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the primary effect (immediate stop of future executions) and notes it applies to active schedules. However, it does not mention reversibility, whether the schedule is deleted or just disabled, or any ownership verification requirement (agent_id).

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 clear sentence that directly states the action and its effect, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations or output schema, the description leaves gaps such as what happens after cancellation, whether it is idempotent, and if any validation occurs. It provides the essential purpose but not enough context for a fully safe invocation.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema text; it does not elaborate on how schedule_id is used or the role of agent_id.

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 ('Cancel') and identifies the resource ('active cron schedule') with a clear outcome ('stop all future executions immediately'). It distinguishes from siblings like schedule_task (create), check_schedule (view), and get_execution_history (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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when an active cron schedule needs its future executions stopped. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description details what information is returned. However, it does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or limitations, such as what happens if neither parameter is provided.

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 and resource, then uses an em dash to enumerate the specific outputs. It is concise with no redundant words, striking an ideal balance between brevity and informativeness.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the full range of behaviors. It only covers the single-schedule case, failing to mention that providing agent_id alone lists all schedules for that agent, and it does not state what happens when no parameters are supplied. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema to clarify return values.

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 complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, and the agent_id description in the schema even notes the alternative 'list all' behavior that the main description omits.

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 ('check') and resource ('cron schedule'), clearly stating what it does: shows active status, next run time, and execution count. It is distinct from sibling tools like cancel_schedule and schedule_task, which focus on cancellation and creation.

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 when to use the tool (to check schedule status) but does not explicitly contrast it with get_execution_history or mention when not to use it. The schema hints at listing all schedules via agent_id, but the description itself offers no usage guidance beyond the core purpose.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns (status codes, response previews, timing) but does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'view'), define the time window for 'recent', or mention pagination or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read tool but not comprehensive.

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 conveys the purpose and key output details. There is no wasted content, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 relative simplicity and complete schema documentation, the description is nearly adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description should more thoroughly explain the return format and ordering, which it only partially does with 'status codes, response previews, and timing.' It also omits any mention of prerequisites or authorization, though this is a minor gap for a history viewer.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters (schedule_id and limit), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does provide context that the limit relates to 'recent' history and the schedule_id identifies the schedule, but this is marginal. 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 verb 'view' and the resource 'recent execution history for a schedule', plus specific details about the return content (status codes, response previews, timing). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_schedule, check_schedule, and schedule_task, which have different purposes.

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 when to use this tool (to view execution history) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. The context is clear from the purpose, but there are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key persistence trait ('runs even when your agent session ends'), but does not mention side effects, required permissions, cancellation paths, or response behavior, which are relevant for a creation 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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key input examples. Every word adds value, and it is easily scannable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits what response to expect or how to manage the schedule afterward. While the sibling names suggest complementary tools, the description alone does not fully cover the operational context for an agent.

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 all six parameters described. The description highlights the three main parameters (URL, interval, duration), but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 tool's action ('Register a persistent cron schedule') and specifies the key inputs (URL, frequency, duration). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_schedule and check_schedule by emphasizing creation and persistence.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a schedule must persist beyond the agent session. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the persistence framing provides enough guidance to differentiate from sibling tools.

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