Resource usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context that this only applies to 'monitorResources jobs' and that limits records indicate whether caps applied and whether a memory cap was hit. It does not say what happens for non-monitorResources jobs, rate limits, or output format, but with annotations carrying the safety profile the remaining gap is modest.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary return content (CPU/RSS series) followed by the secondary caps data. It is dense but every clause carries information; slightly more structure (e.g., separating return content from applicability) would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's rich return-value explanation is essential and well done. However, the undefined 'runs' parameter and the absence of any sibling routing leave gaps for an agent deciding between this and cron_get_job_trends/cron_query_metrics.

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 parameter meaning. 'name' is implicitly the job name and 'runs' is only hinted at via 'live and recent runs', but neither is defined: there is no indication whether 'runs' is a count, a window, or a filter, nor any format constraints.

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 resource and scope: CPU/RSS time series for a job's live and recent runs, plus resourceLimits caps and per-run limits records. It distinguishes itself thematically from cron_get_job_trends and cron_query_metrics by naming the monitorResources/caps domain, but it never explicitly names a sibling or states what it does not do.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives. With siblings like cron_get_job_trends, cron_query_metrics, and cron_list_runs that could plausibly overlap, the description leaves the agent to infer that this is the caps/monitorResources-specific variant rather than routing explicitly.

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