Cron Run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing. It does not state that running cron invokes hook_cron implementations, processes queues, may be long-running, or has side effects on site state. For a system-level operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a serious gap.

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 words are not concise here—they are under-specified. The sentence is front-loaded but there is nothing behind it to inform the agent, matching the pattern of a minimal tautological description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. However, for a tool that triggers a potentially heavy, state-changing operation, the complete absence of behavioral context leaves an agent unable to judge implications such as duration or side effects.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics the description could add. Nothing is misrepresented.

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 'Run cron' restates the tool name (cron_run) with no elaboration on what running cron actually entails. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'drush_cron', which by name appears to do the same thing. This is essentially a tautology rather than a specific statement of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use cron_run versus alternatives such as drush_cron, cron_list, or queue_run, which appear in the sibling list. No prerequisites, scope, or context is provided.

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