parse_cron

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

No annotations provided, but the description makes clear this is a parse-only operation that produces text. It does not mention side effects or destruction, and given the nature (parsing), that is sufficient transparency.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, supported features, and usage guidance. No redundant or vague wording.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no required output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it does, what it accepts, and when to use it. No 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter, but the schema's description is just an example. The tool's description adds valuable detail about supported extensions (L, W, #, named months/days), which helps the agent construct valid inputs beyond basic cron syntax.

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 returns a human-readable description. It specifies the supported formats (5-field standard plus extensions) and explicitly says 'Use this to explain any cron schedule,' making purpose and scope clear.

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 the tool is for explaining cron schedules in plain English, which distinguishes it from siblings like validate_cron (syntax check) and next_runs (future times). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, so a slight deduction.

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