pressable_list_cron_jobs

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 only states the operation ('Get a list') without revealing any additional traits, such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, response format, or required permissions. The lack of any transparency beyond the verb leaves the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It states that the tool lists cron jobs for a site, but it omits details like the structure of the returned cron jobs, whether pagination exists, or any error conditions. For a straightforward read operation, this may be adequate but leaves gaps in expectations.

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 only defines 'id' as a string with no description. The description compensates by saying 'for a specific site', which semantically links 'id' to the site identifier, providing crucial context. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state that 'id' is the site ID or where to obtain it.

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 ('Get a list') and the specific resource ('cron jobs for a specific site'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a unique resource (cron jobs) not covered by other 'list' tools. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 its use case: to retrieve cron jobs for a site, with the 'id' likely representing the site ID. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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