cron_list

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it does not modify, returns both manual and MCP sections as raw text, and handles missing crontab by returning empty string. This is transparent for a read-only tool, though permission requirements are not mentioned.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds critical detail (no parameters, no modification, output format). No unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters and an output schema (as indicated by context), the description provides complete context: it explains the full output (both sections, empty for missing crontab) and confirms read-only nature. No gaps for effective usage.

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?

No parameters exist, and the description explicitly states this. Since schema coverage is 100% (trivially), the description adds value by confirming absence of parameters and explaining the tool's input independence.

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 'Read the full crontab' (verb 'Lees' is read), specifying the resource (crontab of local root user). It distinguishes from sibling modification tools like cron_add and cron_remove by implying read-only action.

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 indicates no parameters and no modification, which guides when to use (reading crontab). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for specific tasks like checking next runs (cron_next_runs) or enabling cron (cron_enable), so the guidance could be more explicit.

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