list cron jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the fact that it executes a 'verified command' (v-list-cron-jobs), which is useful but not essential. It does not describe output format or pagination, but with annotations covering the core behavior, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, e.g., by adding a note on parameters.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the 0% parameter coverage means the description should explain what 'user' and 'format' do; it does not. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter semantics make it incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional guessing.

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 compensate for parameter explanation. However, the description does not mention 'user' or 'format' at all. The agent only has the schema's patterns and enum to infer meaning. This is a severe gap, as the description provides no semantic context for either parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a user's cron jobs'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_cron_job or delete_cron_job. It also mentions the underlying command, reinforcing the exact scope. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other list tools (list_web_domains, list_mail_domains, etc.).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_cron_job, delete_cron_job). However, the name and verb imply its purpose for retrieval. There is no explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it relies on the agent to infer usage context from the sibling set.

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