find_missed_or_overdue_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the query criteria; it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, does not mention side effects or permission requirements, and does not explain how the grace_minutes parameter influences what counts as overdue.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter. A complete description would specify what the returned list looks like, how grace_minutes affects results, and when to prefer this over sibling tools. The current one-liner leaves these gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention grace_minutes at all. The parameter name and schema bounds (default 30, min 0, max 10080) provide some inference, but the agent is left to guess how the grace period interacts with the 'overdue' condition.

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 ('find'), a concrete resource ('enabled recurring jobs'), and a precise condition ('next-run timestamp is overdue'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_recurring_jobs, which would list all recurring jobs, and get_recent_failures, which targets failures rather than overdue schedules.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no preconditions. It is self-evident that you use it to find overdue jobs, but there is no explicit routing compared to sibling tools like get_recent_failures or summarize_degraded_successes.

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