Duplicate schedules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic insight that duplicate means identical resolved run times rather than identical expression strings, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about scope (all jobs? all pools?) or result shape. Acceptable but thin given it is a zero-argument scan of everything.

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 short sentences, the definition first and the actionable purpose second, with no filler. The example is short and directly clarifies the core concept.

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 parameterless read-only diagnostic with full annotation coverage and no output schema, an agent has enough to decide to call it. The only real omission is scope: nothing says whether it examines all jobs, a single pool, or only enabled jobs.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed, though it could have noted that the scan is unconditional across all jobs.

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 identifies the resource precisely: jobs whose cron expressions resolve to the same run times, with a concrete example ('*/5 and 0-59/5 in the same time zone') that disambiguates from raw string comparison. It is clearly distinct from cron_schedule_pressure by being about identity rather than load, though it never states the actual verb (list/return) or names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use this to find schedules that could be spread out' supplies one motivating scenario, which is more than nothing. But there is no when-not guidance, no mention of what to do after finding duplicates (e.g. cron_suggest_slot), and no indication of whether to prefer cron_schedule_pressure for contention analysis.

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