List cron jobs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the authorization requirement (push access, 403 on failure), the exact response shape, and a subtle behavioral detail that variable values are deliberately omitted while names are returned. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns first, then prerequisites, then a cross-reference hint. No filler, and the field list earns its length because there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is essential and present; with only two enum-free required params, the description plus schema fully covers invocation. Auth behavior is disclosed, so an agent can anticipate and interpret the 403.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (repo accepts owner/name or numeric id; instance names the Woodpecker instance), so the schema already does the work. The description only implies the repo scoping and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists a repository's cron jobs') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (id, name, schedule, timezone, branch, enabled, next run, variable names). No sibling tool covers crons, so it is unmistakable against list_pipelines and list_repos.

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?

Gives clear calling context: it requires push access to the repository and Woodpecker returns 403 otherwise, and it notes that pipelines started by a cron carry event 'cron', which cross-navigates to pipeline-listing tools. It does not phrase explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling offers overlapping functionality, so routing ambiguity is low.

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