Get Cron Triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds 'scheduled events' as a clarification, but does not describe potential errors, output format, or behavior when the script does not exist. This aligns with the high-coverage baseline.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero filler. Every word earns its place. This is an example of excellent conciseness.

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?

This is a simple getter with one required parameter and no output schema. The description clearly states what it returns (cron triggers/scheduled events). It lacks details on return structure or error scenarios, but the simplicity of the tool means the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is not specifying that the return is likely a list, but the term 'triggers' implies multiple.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter script_name, described as 'The name of the Worker script'. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (a Worker's cron triggers), and clarifies 'scheduled events' to disambiguate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_cron_triggers (which sets triggers) and get_worker (which gets worker details).

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 implicitly indicates when to use: to retrieve the cron triggers for a Worker. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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