Get cron job output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful scope: only the last execution's captured output is returned, not arbitrary executions, and uid is the lookup key. This is consistent with annotations, though it doesn't detail output format or edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple read.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the helpful pointer to the list cron jobs endpoint is kept brief.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with two documented required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is returned, the lookup key, and how to obtain the key. The only real gap is the unhelpful schema note 'username parameter' and the lack of description-level context for what username refers to, so an agent may need surrounding context to know which username to pass.

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?

Both parameters, uid and username, are fully described in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description correctly points out that uid is the cron job identifier and comes from the list cron jobs endpoint, but this largely duplicates the schema. It adds no meaningful explanation for username, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the captured output from the last execution of a cron job identified by uid. The wording makes clear this is a retrieval operation and distinguishes it from sibling cron job create/list/delete tools. Minor omission: no explanation of the role of username, but the resource and behavior are unambiguous.

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 second sentence directs the caller to the list cron jobs endpoint for obtaining the required uid, which is actionable input guidance. It doesn't explicitly discuss when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but no direct sibling offers cron job output, so the implied usage context is sufficient. Could be more explicit about the need for username, but the context is clear.

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