List cron jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail of what the entries contain (type http/system, reporting, state) but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for a list endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what to expect. 'reporting and state' is slightly vague but does not bloat the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. The definition is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, with only pagination/volume behavior left unaddressed.

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% and the single 'vserver' parameter is documented there with an example and a pointer to list_webhostings. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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?

Uses a specific verb 'List' plus the resource 'cron jobs' and enumerates the fields surfaced (schedule, command/URL, type http/system, reporting, state), which makes the scope concrete. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, though none of the listed siblings cover cron, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Listing is inherently implied by the verb, and the required 'vserver' scoping is left entirely to the schema. There is no statement of when to prefer this over another tool, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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