get_user_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'Read-only' and reveals how failures are handled (errors field for missing crontab). This gives reasonable transparency for a simple read-only aggregator, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like partial failures or permissions. Given the lack of annotations, this is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences: the first defines the tool's scope and components, the second adds safety and error-handling info plus usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or padding, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it aggregates, that it's read-only, error handling, and usage context. It distinguishes from the most relevant sibling. There's no need to describe return values since an output schema exists, so the description is complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, an empty-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details because none exist, so no points deducted.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('aggregates') and resource ('current user's scheduled tasks'), enumerating the exact sources (crontab -l and systemd user timers). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool get_cron_jobs by specifying scope (user-level vs system-wide).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use for user-level automation') and directly names the alternative for system-wide cron ('get_cron_jobs for system-wide cron'). This is a clear, actionable usage directive.

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