Get Cron Job Output

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Get output' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if no output exists, response format, or rate limits. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

It is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It could have included usage guidance or alternative references without becoming verbose.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what 'output' means (e.g., logs, stdout) and any context about the UID. It lacks context about how to retrieve the UID (from cron list) and what the response might contain.

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?

Schema covers both parameters (username and uid) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('output of a cron job execution'). It clearly differs from sibling tools like hosting_cron_list, which list cron jobs, and hosting_cron_create/delete. It is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that the UID should come from hosting_cron_list or that this is for retrieving execution logs. There are no explicit exclusions or preferred use cases.

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