get_cron_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what happens if no email is configured, whether any permissions are required, or whether it could be empty. For a zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that fully captures the purpose without any unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description is complete. It states exactly what information is returned, and no additional context is needed for competent use. The sibling 'set_cron_email' reinforces the domain, but the description alone suffices.

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, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return value rather than any parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing additional to convey.

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 ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('email address for cron job notifications'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_cron_email' which sets the same email. The title is null, but the description alone 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 its usage context: when you need to retrieve the cron notification email address. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_cron_email) or provide any exclusions. The sibling names help, but the description itself offers no direct comparative guidance.

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