Zadania cykliczne

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about retrieving the output of the last run using job with site, but does not disclose other behavior such as default scope, filtering, or response structure.

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 concise sentences: the first states the main purpose and scope, and the second adds the key invocation detail. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with four parameters, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it lists, the scope options, and the special job+site usage. It does not describe return fields, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that 'job' should be provided together with 'site' to see the last run output, and it explains the relationship between 'server', 'site', and cron jobs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wypisuje' – lists) and names the exact resource ('zadania cykliczne (cron)' – scheduled/cron jobs), including the scope ('serwera albo konkretnego site'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers, list_sites, list_deployments, and list_background_processes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list cron jobs for a server or for a specific site. It also gives a practical usage instruction ('Podaj argument job razem z site...'), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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