schedule

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

The description discloses that the tool installs as macOS LaunchAgent or Linux crontab, which implies system modification. Combined with the annotation destructiveHint:true, this adequately signals potential destructiveness. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. While the description explains the high-level functionality and platform installation, it omits details on return values, error behavior, or how listing/deletion works. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating the schedule syntax example already in the schema. Baseline '3' is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool creates, lists, or deletes scheduled tasks, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle feedback, governance, or other unrelated functions, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 what the tool does (create/list/delete) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or excluded scenarios. Usage is implied through the action enum, but no when-not-to-use advice is given.

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