bundle_schedule_hint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and explicitly states 'WRITES NOTHING and starts no daemon', detailing the exact behavior. This fully discloses the side-effect-free nature.

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 front-loads the key insight '[READ]' and purpose, then explains behavior and parameters. While efficient, the Args section could be more concise, but overall each sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics well. It could specify the exact output format (e.g., a string) but mentions 'master-password env note'. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter with defaults, examples, and accepted values (e.g., framework list, cron format). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it composes and validates a cron line and command for periodic sealed-bundle generation, with the tag '[READ]' and explicit note that it writes nothing. This distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like generate_evidence_bundle and sign_bundle.

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?

Description emphasizes that the tool only composes and validates, and does not execute or schedule, implying use when a ready-to-paste schedule hint is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the read-only nature provides clear guidance.

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