time_cron_parser

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), description adds: runs locally, contacts no external service, rate-limited (60/min), error behavior (HTTP 400 with details), and that @reboot is rejected. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with title, operations, usage guidance, and behavioral details front-loaded. Sentences are informative but some redundancy (e.g., 'read-only, non-destructive' and 'Runs locally' could be merged). Slightly long but effective.

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 complexity (4 params, 2 operations, output schema exists), description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter semantics, error handling, and rate limits. Output schema is present, so return value explanation is unnecessary. No significant gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context: operation describe vs nextRuns, and that fromIso and count are only for nextRuns. Extra detail on each operation's output (English summary vs timestamps) provides value beyond 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Cron Expression Parser and Next-Run Preview' with specific operations (describe, nextRuns). Differentiates from sibling 'linux_cron_job' by stating its use case (read/validate existing vs build new schedule).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to read or validate an existing cron string; use linux_cron_job instead to build a new schedule from a visual form.' Also notes it is read-only and non-destructive.

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