system.jobs.run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'executes a scheduled job immediately' but does not mention side effects, permissions, destructiveness, or any operational consequences. This is critically insufficient for a tool that likely triggers state changes.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specific: the single sentence could have included more useful information without being verbose. It earns its place by stating the basic purpose, but the minimalism reduces utility.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description still fails to be complete. It does not explain return values, success/failure indicators, preconditions, or what executing a job actually triggers. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 one required parameter (job_name) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not describe or contextualize this parameter at all. Since the schema provides no semantic help, the description needed to compensate but failed entirely.

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 states the verb 'Executes' and the resource 'scheduled job', making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like system.jobs.list and system.jobs.history by indicating immediate execution. However, it lacks any additional context about what 'execution' entails, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any alternative tools. The absence of usage direction leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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