job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the [READ] marker (redundant with the annotation) and enumerates the status values, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what 'duration' measures for in-flight jobs.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is tight, with no filler. Formatting is functional though the block-style parameter list is slightly less scannable than inline prose.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint, the description covers parameters well but omits return-shape context (e.g., what fields a job row carries, ordering, or truncation behavior at the 1000 limit). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden — and it largely does: it documents limit's range (1-1000) and default (100), the exact status enum values that the schema lacks, and target's default behavior. It stops short of explaining whether status is exact-match only across multiple values or any format nuances.

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 resource (engine jobs / long-running operations) and what the listing conveys (status and duration). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling (none of the siblings are job-related, so this is minor).

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 target parameter note ('omit to use the default') gives a small amount of invocation guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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