cron_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it does not disclose whether jobs are scoped to the current user, whether authentication is required, or any rate/volume limits – context that could matter in practice.

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?

The description is a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with zero extraneous content. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and the intended return content. The output schema handles return value details, so nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('scheduled jobs') with the output fields (schedules, next run times). It clearly distinguishes cron_list from siblings like cron_create, cron_edit, and cron_runs, which would be used to create, modify, or list run history respectively.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource: an agent can infer to call this when it needs to see scheduled jobs. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or how it differs from cron_runs, leaving the routing to inference rather than direct guidance.

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