inbox_cron_setup

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the tool is safe, and the description adds useful detail beyond that: it returns instructional content rather than performing scheduling, and it names the exact formats/daemons covered. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire message with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the supporting detail about target systems and idle reachability is concise and directly relevant.

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?

For a read-only, zero-parameter instruction-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is returned, for which systems, and why it matters. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but complexity is low.

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 full schema coverage, so the description is not required to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related noise.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get instructions for scheduling automatic inbox checks.' It then specifies the two target systems (Claude Code CronCreate and OpenCode artel-watch daemon), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like message_inbox or compile_setup.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to set up automatic inbox checks so other agents can reach you while idle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is concrete enough that an agent can decide when this is appropriate.

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