goclaw_cron_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool triggers a cron job immediately, implying a write/mutation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., if the job runs in background), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('trigger a cron job') and specifies the timing ('immediately'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (triggering a cron job is a mutation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or what happens after triggering (e.g., does it return job status?). For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Cron job ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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 ('trigger') and resource ('cron job') with the specific timing constraint 'immediately'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like goclaw_cron_create, goclaw_cron_list, etc., by focusing on execution rather than management, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with goclaw_cron_toggle which might also affect job execution.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cron job ID), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like goclaw_cron_toggle (which might enable/disable jobs) or goclaw_custom_tool_invoke (which runs custom tools). Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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