Get Failed Cron Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned scope (last 24 hours, failed/stuck status) and explicitly confirms it is not a fixer, aligning with the non-destructive annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical exclusion and alternative. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-only query tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and alternatives. The output schema handles return values, and annotations handle safety. Nothing needed for an agent to call it correctly 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%, with detailed descriptions for both 'profile' and 'magentoRoot'. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already documents them sufficiently. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('Returns'), the resource ('cron_schedule jobs'), and the specific filter (failed or stuck) with a time window (last 24 hours). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_cron_schedule by noting that tool covers broader history, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT fix crons') and points to an alternative ('use get_cron_schedule for broader history'). This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool versus the sibling, leaving no inference needed.

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