cronjob_get

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

With no annotations, the description uses '[READ]' to signal it is safe and non-destructive. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, but for a simple get operation, it is adequate.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose with '[READ]', and using a clear bulleted list for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.

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, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. It does not describe the return value format (no output schema present), but the agent can infer it returns cronjob details. The reference to cronjob_list adds helpful context.

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 0%, so the description's parameter explanations are crucial. It provides brief but meaningful descriptions for name, namespace, and target, including cross-references and defaults. However, lacks format constraints or examples.

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 'Return detail for a single cronjob by name', with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like cronjob_list, and the [READ] tag reinforces its read-only nature.

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 by referencing cronjob_list to obtain the name, providing implicit guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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