cron_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '添加定时任务' indicates a write operation that creates a scheduled task, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with complex parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at just four characters ('添加定时任务'), which translates to 'Add scheduled task'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. For a tool with a clear name like cron_add, this minimal description efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema provides good parameter documentation, the description fails to address the broader context needed for a mutation tool that creates scheduled tasks with potentially significant system impact.

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 parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With 80% schema description coverage, the schema documents most parameters well (name, description, schedule configuration, payload, options). The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't compensate for the remaining 20% gap.

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 '添加定时任务' (Add scheduled task) clearly states the verb 'add' and resource 'scheduled task', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cron_list (list), cron_remove (remove), cron_run (run), and cron_status (status) by specifying the creation action. However, it doesn't specify what kind of scheduled tasks are being added beyond the generic term.

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, when cron_add is appropriate versus cron_run or cron_status, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names alone, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.

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