Run history

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating the returned data (run history, success rate, duration statistics) and the recency limitation ('most recent `limit` runs'). It still omits edge-case behavior such as empty history or pagination, so it is not fully complete.

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 clauses. It packs purpose, output contents, scope, and the `limit` behavior efficiently.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, returned statistics, and both parameter intents adequately. It remains incomplete because it does not help route among the many sibling tools or clarify defaults and empty-result behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies that `name` identifies the job and that `limit` bounds the number of most recent runs returned, adding useful semantics for both parameters. However, it does not state requiredness, default limit, accepted range, or formatting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it shows saved run history plus success-rate and duration statistics for one job. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool, but it does not distinguish it from siblings like cron_get_job_trends, cron_why_no_run, or cron_tail_job_logs.

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?

The description states the scope ('for one job' and 'most recent `limit` runs') but gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. With many closely related cron tools, an agent gets no explicit routing signal for choosing this over cron_why_no_run or cron_tail_job_logs.

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