SLA trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results are computed from saved run history (not live data) and are per-job scoped. It says nothing about data retention limits, how 'all' is bounded, or latency/cost of the aggregation.

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 with no filler, and the scope (windows, source, single job) is front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: success-rate and duration statistics bucketed by window. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is nearly sufficient, missing only caveats about history availability or empty windows.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it only implies that 'name' identifies the single job ('for one job'). The enumerated windows (1h/24h/7d/30d/all) are output dimensions rather than request parameters, so they do not document 'name' any further — no format hints (exact name vs. glob/regex).

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 concrete resource (success-rate and duration statistics) scoped to one job and to a set of named time windows, which separates it from cron_get_job (definition) and cron_list_runs (raw run list). The verb is implicit ('statistics from the saved run history'), and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops just short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase 'from the saved run history' hints that this is historical analytics rather than live status, but the agent is left to infer that distinction from cron_get_status and cron_list_runs on its own.

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