list_cron_jobs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds transparency by specifying that it returns a 7-day run count, error count, and timestamp, clarifying the scope and freshness of the data. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the action and output, the second provides a practical use case. Every word serves a purpose; there is no wasted text.

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 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is returned and why to use it. However, it does not mention any pagination or limits (e.g., if there are many cron jobs), but this is a minor gap for a list tool without output schema.

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 100% coverage with one required parameter (project_id). The description does not reiterate the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it. The description adds value by explaining the output fields, which compensates for the lack of parameter elaboration.

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 combines a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('every scheduled cron function') and details the exact data returned (expression, run count, error count, last_run_at). It distinguishes from siblings like list_functions or view_logs by focusing on cron jobs and their execution statistics.

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 offers a concrete use case: 'Use this to verify a cron job is actually firing without tailing logs manually.' While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, the context of sibling tools suggests it is specialized for cron monitoring, and the description implies it is preferable to manual log inspection.

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