list_recurring_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals only that jobs are 'normalized,' but not the output shape, whether the operation is read-only, or any filtering/default behavior. The word 'List' implies a read operation, but key details like the effect of include_disabled are absent.

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?

Exactly one sentence with an action verb and direct object; there are no superfluous words and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it under-specifies by omitting usage and parameter context.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone must complete the picture for an agent. It does not mention return format, default filtering behavior, or how it relates to sibling report/health tools. This is not enough context for confident selection and expected output.

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 description adds no information about include_disabled; the input schema only gives type and default with no description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have mentioned that disabled jobs are excluded by default, rather than leaving this to the parameter name.

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 starts with an action verb ('List') and names a specific resource ('recurring cron jobs'), further qualified by 'normalized.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_server_health and audit_locks, which focus on health and audits rather than listing jobs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this over sibling tools; no when/when-not conditions or alternative names are given. The phrasing implies it is the tool for listing recurring cron jobs, but it does not clarify when get_job_health or generate_ops_report would be more appropriate.

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