util_cron_describe

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

With no annotations, the description reveals only basic behavior: validation and description. It fails to disclose important traits such as read-only nature, error handling, timezone assumptions, or output structure for the scheduled runs.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action. No superfluous words or irrelevant information.

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?

The description omits crucial details: it does not specify the input format (e.g., a string cron expression inside the 'arguments' object) nor the output format beyond 'plain English' and 'next 5 runs'. For a tool with no output schema and a nested object parameter, this is insufficient.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'arguments' parameter at all. The agent receives no guidance on how to pass the cron expression or what properties are expected, making correct invocation difficult.

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-resource pair: 'Validate and describe a cron expression' and specifies the output format ('plain English' and 'next 5 scheduled runs'). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which involve cron expressions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or similar tools. The agent is given no contextual cues for selection.

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