cron-parser

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes core behavior (parsing, returning runs, supporting shortcuts) and 'Zero external calls', but does not detail default values, error handling, or input validation. The schema parameter descriptions cover defaults, but the tool description could add more behavioral detail.

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?

Description is four concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output, then features, then performance note. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 low complexity, rich schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, outputs, supported formats, and a key behavioral trait (no external calls). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides; it mentions return components but not parameter specifics.

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 'Parse and explain any Unix cron expression in plain English' with a specific verb and resource. It lists return components and supported shortcuts, distinguishing it from all sibling tools (none parse cron).

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 context: whenever a cron expression needs parsing or explanation. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but given the unique functionality, this is acceptable. The note 'Zero external calls' adds reliability context.

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