Cron Run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Run') but lacks critical details such as whether this requires admin permissions, if it's safe for production environments, potential performance impacts, or what happens upon execution (e.g., output format, errors). This is inadequate for a tool that performs system operations.

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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of running system cron jobs (a potentially impactful operation), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide enough context for safe and effective use. The agent lacks information on prerequisites, outcomes, or error handling.

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, clearly documenting both parameters ('group' and 'job') with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying cron job execution, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 action ('Run') and resource ('Magento 2 cron jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sys-cron-list' (which likely lists cron jobs) or other execution tools, missing an opportunity for precise distinction.

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. For example, it does not mention when to run cron jobs manually versus relying on automated scheduling, or how it relates to siblings like 'sys-cron-list' or other system tools. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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