cron_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the action queues a run rather than executing immediately, and it happens on the next scheduler tick. It makes the asynchronous nature clear, though it omits details about idempotency or error conditions, which is minor for a one-action tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the action, target, and timing.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action and timing adequately. It misses a note that the job must already exist, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter, job_id, and the description's 'a job' makes the mapping apparent. It does not add explicit detail about where to obtain the ID or its expected format, but the context is sufficient for a simple parameter.

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 'Queue' with a clear resource 'a job' and the timing constraint 'on the next scheduler tick instead of waiting.' This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like cron_create (scheduling) and cron_runs (listing runs).

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 phrase 'instead of waiting' implies this is for triggering a job before its scheduled time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like cron_create or cron_edit. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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