Cron List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read-only operation ('List'), it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, how data is retrieved (e.g., from database or configuration files), potential performance impacts, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. No redundancy or verbose explanations detract from clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., schedule, status, last run), how results are structured, or potential limitations (e.g., pagination). With no annotations and simple schema, more context would improve completeness for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'format' well-documented (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the implications of each format choice (e.g., 'table' for human-readable output vs. 'json' for programmatic use). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Magento 2 cron jobs and their configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sys-cron-run' (which executes cron jobs) or 'sys-check' (which might check cron status), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific list tool over alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'sys-cron-run' (for executing cron jobs) and 'sys-check' (potentially for cron-related diagnostics), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of comparative guidance could lead to misuse or confusion in tool selection.

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