Get Cron Schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation's safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the ordering ('newest first') and that it returns 'recent' entries, which implies a limit based on the default parameter. This is useful but modest beyond 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and ordering, and the second sentence provides the use case and optional filter. No redundancy or extraneous details; the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains what the tool returns (recent entries ordered), how to filter, and when to use it. Standard parameters like profile and magentoRoot are already documented in the schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, profile, magentoRoot, job_code_pattern) is already documented in the schema. The description mentions the job_code_pattern filter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 the verb ('Returns'), the specific resource ('recent cron_schedule entries'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It also mentions the optional filter by job_code pattern. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_failed_cron_jobs, which target specific failure states rather than general recent entries.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use to debug stuck, missed, or error cron jobs.' It also notes the optional filter condition. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_failed_cron_jobs, though the intended context is evident.

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