next_runs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly covers side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication, rate limits (free/pro), error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This exceeds expectations for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with headings (Behavior, When to use, etc.) and contains necessary behavioral details. However, it is verbose with redundancy; for example, 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections overlap on read-only and idempotency points. Could be more concise without losing information.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are not needed. The description covers usage context, behavioral traits, and guidelines. The only gap is poor parameter semantics, which is scored separately. Given the complexity of cron calculations and the presence of sibling tools, the description is largely complete except for parameter clarity.

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 'Args' section repeats parameter names with generic phrases like 'The expression to analyze or process' or 'The count to analyze or process,' adding no meaningful context. For a tool that calculates next cron runs, the description should clarify that 'expression' is a cron expression, 'count' is the number of runs, and 'from_date' is the starting date. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but failed.

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 'Calculate next N run times for a cron expression,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_cron, generate_cron, parse_cron) by focusing on calculating future runs rather than explaining, generating, or parsing cron expressions.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide guidance, suggesting it for structured analysis and warning against real-time production use without human review. However, it lacks direct comparison to sibling tools, which would clarify when to choose this over explain_cron, generate_cron, or parse_cron.

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