Get cron job details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that this is a read operation ('Get') and discloses the specific fields returned, which is useful. But it says nothing about error behavior, whether the job must exist, response format, or sensitivity of returned auth data—gaps that are partly mitigated by the simplicity of a get-by-ID operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the identification method, and the scope of returned data. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy or 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 simple single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return scope. It stops slightly short of being fully complete by omitting not-found behavior, but given the low complexity of the operation, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already explains jobId as 'The job's numeric ID.' The description merely echoes 'by ID' and adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the input schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('cron job'), and a clear scope ('by ID'), and it enumerates the included detail areas (auth, notifications, headers, body). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or get_job_history without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'for one cron job by ID' implies this is the tool to use when retrieving a single job's full details, which provides clear context. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_jobs to see all jobs'), so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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