Missed schedules

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

The description adds the specific selection logic — 'most recent firing is older than their expression implies' and the exclusion of schedules registered more recently than their last expected tick. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint annotations, giving the agent a precise behavioral model without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The main scope is front-loaded ('Only the cron schedules...'), and the second sentence adds a necessary clarification about exclusions. Every word 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 optional parameter, omitting any explanation of graceMinutes is a critical gap. The description also does not mention the returned shape or pagination, though the lack of an output schema lowers that bar. The parameter gap alone makes the description incomplete for correct 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?

The sole parameter, graceMinutes, is completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. An agent cannot determine what graceMinutes affects, how it changes results, or whether it is a tolerance window, a cooldown, or something else. The description provides no meaning for any parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists cron schedules whose most recent firing is older than their expression implies. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like failed_jobs, stuck_jobs, and schedule_status, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (when you need missed schedules) and explains the exclusion of recently registered schedules, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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