bundle_schedule_hint

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: it validates the cron line, starts no daemon, and flags the non-interactive master-password env note. That is useful operational detail the annotation does not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the core deliverable, then a per-argument list. Every sentence earns its place; slightly verbose in the middle paragraph but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return as a ready-to-paste cron line plus command, and documents all four inputs. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact output shape and period grammar are left implicit.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it enumerates valid framework values, defines cron as a 5-field expression with a default, gives period examples ('7d', 'last-7-days'), and explains sign as adding --sign. Only minor format ambiguity for period remains.

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 states a specific verb+resource (composes/validates a crontab line and the exact `bundle generate` command) and immediately scopes it against the sibling generators: it is a hint/command composer, not an executor. '[READ] ... WRITES NOTHING and starts no daemon' cleanly separates it from generate_evidence_bundle and export_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?

It implies the usage context ('periodic sealed-bundle generation', 'an operator can schedule'), which tells the agent when it fits. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g. versus calling generate_evidence_bundle directly), leaving routing to inference.

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