预演未来触发时间

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a non-destructive preview ('预演'), but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what the tool returns in detail, or whether it requires an existing job. There is no mention of side effects or limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral context.

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 that efficiently states the action, input basis, and purpose. No redundant words or unrelated details, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter nature and full schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify the return format (e.g., number of trigger times, timezone) and explicitly confirm no side effects, which it does not fully deliver.

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 schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (scheduleType and scheduleConf), including the distinction between CRON and FIX_RATE. The description adds only a general reference to 'Cron expression' but no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: to preview future trigger times based on scheduling type and configuration. The verb 'beforehand' (预演) and resource 'future trigger time' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like trigger_job that actually execute jobs.

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 implies a use case ('用于校验调度配置是否符合预期' – to verify scheduling configuration) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. While the context is present, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to other job-related tools.

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