developer_cron_parser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors (validate, explain, list dates) but does not detail error handling on invalid expressions, output format, or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence with 17 words, front-loaded with the main action. Every part is necessary; no wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It mentions listing dates and explaining scheduling but omits format and validation failure behavior. Completeness is adequate for a simple utility tool but has gaps.

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 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The overall description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 parses a cron expression and performs three specific actions: validate, explain scheduling, and list next execution dates. There are no sibling tools with similar purpose, so no differentiation needed.

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 usage for parsing cron expressions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. Given no sibling cron tools, lack of guidance is less critical but still a gap.

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