Explain a schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: defaults (count 5, max 60; tz UTC), the Jenkins H-slot resolution semantics via seed, and that warnings come from the server's scheduling engine.

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?

Two dense sentences, no filler, with the primary action and output payload front-loaded and edge-case semantics (H slots) deferred to the end. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Output structure is covered by the existing output schema, so the description correctly omits return-value detail while still telling the agent what the payload contains at a high level. Defaults, ranges, timezone handling, and seed semantics are all present for a four-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it does: count is given a default and a hard max, tz gets a default plus a usage instruction ('pass the job's zone'), seed is explained as a job name resolving Jenkins-style H slots, and expression is the required cron input. Every parameter gains meaning beyond its bare 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?

States a specific verb (decode) and resource (cron expression) and enumerates the three outputs: plain-English description, next run times, and advisory warnings. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cron_validate_schedule or cron_why_no_run, which serve different diagnostic purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('decode a cron expression') and the hint to 'pass the job's zone', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to cron_validate_schedule or cron_why_no_run. An agent must infer that this is the comprehension tool rather than the validation tool.

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