cronjob_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It includes the [READ] tag indicating a non-destructive operation and lists the fields returned. It does not describe any side effects or additional behavioral traits, but for a simple list operation, this 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 highly concise: two sentences plus parameter explanations, with no extraneous text. The [READ] tag and main purpose are front-loaded, and 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose, returned fields, and parameter usage, leaving no major gaps for the 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?

The input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the namespace parameter ('omit for all namespaces') and the target parameter ('k8s target name from config'). This is valuable context 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?

The description clearly states it lists cronjobs and specifies the fields returned (name, namespace, schedule, suspend, active, age). The [READ] tag and the verb 'list' make the purpose unmistakable. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like cronjob_get and job_list.

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 explains how to use the namespace parameter ('omit for all namespaces') and the target parameter, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, the sibling tools list implies that this is for listing all cronjobs, while cronjob_get retrieves a specific one.

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