schedule_recurring_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions server-managed execution and offline capability, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether this is a mutation (implied by 'schedule'), error handling, rate limits, or what happens on schedule conflicts. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or usage scenarios.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, interaction with sibling tools (e.g., how this relates to 'list_schedules'), and operational constraints. For a scheduling tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 63% (5 out of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate for gaps. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's implied by 'cron schedule' (relating to 'cron_expression'). It doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'task_name', 'prompt', or 'source' in context, nor does it clarify the role of defaults like 'auto_create_pr'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does moderate lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Schedule a Jules task to run automatically on a cron schedule.' It specifies the verb ('schedule'), resource ('Jules task'), and key behavior ('run automatically on a cron schedule'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_coding_task' or 'list_schedules' beyond the scheduling aspect.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'The server manages execution even when offline,' which implies reliability but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_coding_task' for one-off tasks or 'delete_schedule' for removal. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are provided.

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