cron_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly identifies a non-destructive listing operation and explains the impersonation behavior. It does not discuss permissions or output details, but for a simple read-only list tool the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. The Args line is a minimal, useful addition.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that impersonate is optional or refer to cron_create/cron_delete, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema has one parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'impersonate: Owning user' adds meaning by indicating whose cron jobs are listed. It does not explain empty/default behavior but adequately clarifies the only 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 the action ('List'), the resource ('cron jobs'), and the scope ('current or impersonated user'). This distinguishes it from the sibling cron_create and cron_delete tools by naming the read-only listing operation explicitly.

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 implies a listing scenario and clarifies that impersonate selects the owning user, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as cron_create or cron_delete, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is present but mostly implied.

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