cron_runs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the read-only nature ('Show') and the ordering behavior, but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or limitations (e.g., scope of records). It adds some behavior context but not rich 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?

The description is one short sentence that front-loads the action and ordering. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is short. However, since the only parameter's semantics are undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is incomplete for agents trying to call it correctly. It also doesn't specify scope of 'execution attempts' (e.g., all jobs or default filter).

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 schema has no description for job_id (0% coverage). The description does not mention job_id at all, leaving agents to guess whether it is a filter, an identifier, or otherwise. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Show') and resource ('recorded execution attempts'), with an ordering qualifier ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cron_list (listing cron jobs) and cron_run (triggering executions).

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 its use when execution history is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cron_list or cron_run, nor state conditions for choosing this tool over them. No when-not or alternative guidance.

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