cronjob

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

With no annotations, the description does the most important job itself by declaring 'Read-only', which tells the agent this tool will not mutate jobs. It stops there: no mention of permissions, pagination, error behavior when a code is invalid, or what the returned status contains.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the safety profile and then the mode split. Zero filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema absent, the description covers the essentials of invocation but leaves the code parameter's origin undefined and says nothing about return shape or failure modes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps action values to behaviors (list vs status), but the 'code' parameter—the one genuinely ambiguous input—is only obliquely referenced as 'by code', with no indication of where a code comes from or its format.

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?

Specific verb (list/return status) against a specific resource (cronjobs), and it explicitly enumerates the two operating modes keyed to the action enum. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like logs_tail or monitoring_info, which is the only thing keeping 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?

Implies that action=list is the default listing behavior and action=status is used when you have a code, but never states when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as logs_tail or monitoring_info, nor what happens if status is requested without a code.

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