dcs_report_jobs

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the "[READ]" tag adds nothing beyond it. Nothing is said about whether results are paginated, ordered, truncated by the limit, or what a "job state" record contains – context an agent would need for a polling/listing tool.

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 single sentence is tightly written and front-loaded with the read marker, so there is no wasted wording. However, brevity here reads as under-specification rather than economy – the one sentence carries no usable detail.

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?

There is no output schema, one entirely undocumented parameter, and no explanation of what a report job state is or how it relates to the other report tools. For a listing endpoint in a dense 34-tool namespace, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% for the single `limit` parameter, and the description never mentions it. With an undocumented param and no description compensation, the agent cannot tell whether limit caps jobs, pages of jobs, or something else, nor what the default of 100 implies.

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?

"[READ] List report job states" names a verb (list) and a resource (report jobs), but "states" is ambiguous – it could mean job status values, job records, or state transitions. It also gives no signal about how this differs from the singular sibling dcs_report_job or from dcs_reports/dcs_report_stats, so the agent must guess which plural/singular variant to call.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus dcs_report_job, dcs_reports, or dcs_report_stats. The only cue is the "[READ]" prefix, which merely restates the read-only annotation rather than describing a selection condition.

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