x402node_dev_cron-parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, has rate limits, or is read-only. The tool is likely safe (parsing only), but this is not stated. The price mention is not behavioral. The lack of transparency is a significant 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?

The description is moderately concise but includes a long list of synonyms (parser/decoder/validator/calculator/...) that are redundant. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the list wastes words. It is not overly verbose, but could be tighter. Score 3 reflects adequate but not optimal conciseness.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It states 'Returns human description + upcoming timestamps,' which is vague but gives a general idea. The input parameters are documented. However, it does not specify the format of the description or timestamps. For a simple tool, it is minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'cron' (required) and 'count' (optional). The description adds context: 'Parse 5-field cron expressions' and 'Returns human description + upcoming timestamps,' which helps clarify the output but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a cron expression parser/validator/next run calculator. It states the exact function: parse 5-field cron expressions and compute next N execution times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, most of which are unrelated (e.g., bazi, almanac, time_parse). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 mentions use cases: 'For AI agents, schedule debug, automation pipelines, infra config validation.' This gives context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no comparison to other time-related tools (e.g., x402node_time_parse). The guidance is present but basic.

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