cron_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it lists tasks but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list, table, JSON), if there are rate limits, or how disabled tasks are handled (though the parameter covers this partially). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, authentication, or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (includeDisabled). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 '列出所有定时任务' (List all scheduled tasks) clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('scheduled tasks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cron_status (which might check status of specific tasks) or cron_run (which executes tasks), but the 'all' scope provides some implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cron_status or cron_add. The description implies it's for listing tasks, but there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, when this should be used over other listing methods, or any contextual limitations.

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