List Scheduled Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the displayed fields (command, user, frequency, last run state) and the scoping options (server or site), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence identifies the resource and output, the second clarifies the use case. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the returned fields (command, user, frequency, last run state) and the two scopes. It misses mentioning pagination or cursor behavior, but those are in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and outputs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond hinting at the 'site' parameter's role. It does not elaborate on other parameters like sort, cursor, filter, etc., which are adequately described in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists cron/scheduled jobs with specific scope (server or site) and details shown (command, user, frequency, last run state). The use case 'confirm a schedule exists and is firing' adds precision, distinguishing it from other listing tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance ('use it to confirm a schedule exists and is firing'). However, no direct comparison with sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios are given, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing tool.

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