list_cron_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing exactly which cron sources are audited and the return structure. It does not mention potential permission requirements or failure behaviors, but the read-only nature is clear and the listed audit paths are strong behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a concise list of audited locations, and a clearly formatted return summary. Every sentence adds value with no repetition 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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the system scope, enumerates audit sources, and describes returned fields. It could add a note on required privileges or the contrast with list_systemd_timers, but nothing essential is missing for successful invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs.

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 tool discovers all scheduled cron jobs on the Linux system, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact audit locations (/etc/crontab, /etc/cron.d/, /etc/cron.*, user crontabs), making its scope concrete and easily distinguishable from systemd-timer-related siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever cron jobs need to be enumerated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the 'Discover all scheduled cron jobs' phrasing provides sufficient guidance for a zero-parameter tool.

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