time_cron_parser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that parsing produces English and UTC firing times, and supports certain syntax, but it does not describe error handling for invalid expressions, any side effects, or limitations (e.g., timezone handling beyond UTC). For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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 relatively short (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the inclusion of 'Menu ID: cron_parser.' is trivial and could be removed for greater conciseness. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly lean.

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 is a parser with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on the 'operation' parameter's role, the exact format of the output, and error handling. It references describe_tool for full guidance, which partially compensates, but the description alone is not fully self-contained for an agent to use confidently.

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 0% description coverage, leaving the parameters 'operation' and 'expression' unexplained. The description clarifies that 'expression' is a cron string (5- or 6-field) and lists supported features, but 'operation' remains ambiguous. The description adds some context for 'expression' but fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for the 'operation' parameter.

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 is a cron expression parser, specifying the input format (5- or 6-field) and output (human-readable English and next firing times in UTC). It also lists supported features (named months, ranges, etc.), making the verb-resource relationship unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linux_cron, which likely serves a different purpose.

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 mentions parsing cron expressions and supports various syntax features, implying usage for interpreting cron strings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linux_cron or other time tools), nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to describe_tool suggests more context is available, but the description itself lacks direct comparative guidance.

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