ray_job_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is a read operation (labeled [READ]), returns a defined structure with pagination details (truncated flag), and explains the truncated field behavior. It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only list tool this is sufficient.

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?

Concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, then the return format, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the layout is easy to parse.

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 description is complete for a list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. It covers the return format, pagination, and parameter defaults. No missing critical information like authentication or scoping given the tool's simple nature.

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%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains both parameters: target (inference target name, default null) and limit (max rows, default 100), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default annotations.

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 states it lists submitted Ray jobs with specific fields (id, status, entrypoint, start time). The verb 'list' and resource 'Ray jobs' are explicit, and the READ label further clarifies intent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ray_job_cancel or serve_deployment_list by specifying the resource and action.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. The description does provide guidance on pagination ('re-run with a higher limit' when truncated is true), which is helpful but does not cover all usage scenarios or exclude sibling tools.

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