List resource pools

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful content-level context by naming the displayed data categories (capacity, queued work, recent outcomes), but it omits scope details such as whether all pools are returned, what 'recent' means, and any ordering or pagination 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the missing scope and usage guidance.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It explains what information is shown, but it does not clarify whether it lists all pools, how 'recent' outcomes are bounded, or how the result relates to sibling inspection 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description introduces confusing parameter information.

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 indicates that the tool exposes pool capacity, queued work, and recent queue outcomes, which implies resource-pool listing. However, it never explicitly says it lists all pools, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cron_get_fleet, cron_get_cluster, or cron_get_job_resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many other cron inspection tools. An agent must infer its place from the name and title alone, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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