kas_cronjob

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior details: protocol must be 'https' or 'http', http_url is without a protocol prefix, and time values follow crontab syntax. It also explains that 'pick' reduces tokens and 'filter' returns only matching entries. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on update/delete (e.g., partial vs. full update, error cases). This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured as a bulleted list, front-loading the purpose ('Manage cronjobs') followed by concise action definitions. Every line adds value—parameter lists, format notes, and optional param behavior—without unnecessary fluff. The use of placeholders like '...fields' keeps it compact while conveying the pattern.

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 CRUD tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage and parameter rules but lacks information about return values or result structures (e.g., does list return an array? what does create return?). It also doesn't address edge cases like cronjob_id validation or error handling. Given the moderate complexity, the description is functional but incomplete for an agent needing to anticipate outputs and failures.

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 definition significantly expands on the schema, which only describes 'pick' and 'filter' but leaves 'action' and 'params' as opaque. The description explains the action enum implicitly and details the create params (protocol, http_url, time fields) with constraints such as protocol values and crontab semantics. It doesn't enumerate all update fields, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Manage cronjobs' and enumerates four actions (list, create, update, delete) with distinct params, making the tool's purpose clear. The resource (cronjobs) is distinct from sibling tools like kas_dns or kas_domain, though the verb 'manage' is generic, so it doesn't fully differentiate beyond the resource name.

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 action breakdown implicitly tells when to use each operation (e.g., 'create' for new cronjobs, 'delete' for removing). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the focused resource make the usage context clear. There are no explicit exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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