Get cron job execution history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies what information is returned (recent executions and predicted timestamps). It does not, however, disclose return structure, paginaton, ordering, or any potential rate/access considerations, though such detail is less critical for a simple read-only list tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main function ('List recent executions') before adding the secondary feature ('predicted upcoming timestamps'). No words are wasted and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with only one required, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately defines what the agent should expect: recent executions and upcoming timestamps. It does not list specific fields or limits, but given the low complexity and the absence of a return schema, the description is reasonably complete for correct selection and invocation.

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%: jobId is documented as 'The job's numeric ID' with an integer type. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already fully explains the only parameter, so the baseline of 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 and resource: 'List recent executions of a cron job' and adds a distinguishing detail about 'predicted upcoming execution timestamps.' This clearly differentiates it from job configuration tools like get_job or mutating tools like create_job/update_job/delete_job, and from get_history_item, which would target a single history entry.

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 its use case: when you need recent execution history or upcoming timestamps for a cron job. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name related siblings like get_history_item or list_jobs for contrast.

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