job_list

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

With no annotations, the [READ] tag explicitly signals a read-only operation, compensating for the lack of annotations. However, it does not disclose possible performance implications or authentication requirements, but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a parameter list—with no fluff. The [READ] tag is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and provides a link to a more detailed tool. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but that is acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description. The description explains target as 'Veeam target name from config; omit to use the default', adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists backup jobs with specific fields (id, name, type, status, lastResult) and distinguishes itself from job_get for full detail. This provides a specific verb and resource, with clear differentiation from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use job_get instead for full detail, but does not cover other usage exclusions or alternatives like filtering. It gives clear context for the target parameter.

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