castov_cron

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it returns a plain-English explanation plus the next 5 execution times, and applies the IANA timezone to the calculation.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the parse action and then the calculation, with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description carries the return-value burden and does so concretely (English explanation plus 5 upcoming times). It is only slightly incomplete in not mentioning behavior for invalid or non-5-field expressions.

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 description restates the same facts (5-field cron expression, IANA timezone) without adding format syntax, edge-case handling, or default behavior beyond what the schema already documents. 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 specific verbs and resources: parse a 5-field cron expression into plain English, and calculate the next 5 execution times. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like castov_timestamp and castov_timezone, which do different work.

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 implies when to use it (interpreting a cron schedule or previewing its next runs), but offers no explicit when-not conditions or pointers to alternatives such as castov_timezone for timezone conversion.

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