List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: default scoping rationale (shared server), 'all' special value, and pagination semantics (offset/limit, total/has_more). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and every sentence adds practical value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations, the description covers scoping, sorting, and pagination. It is a complete and self-contained specification for a read-only list operation.

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 provides 100% coverage of all four parameters. Description enriches understanding by explaining why defaults matter (active project) and how to use offset/limit for pagination, going beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'List jobs newest first, scoped to a project and returned a page at a time.' This uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('jobs'), and adds ordering and scoping details that distinguish it from siblings like job_status or job_result.

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?

Provides clear guidance: defaults to active project, suggests project='all' to see everything, and explains paging with offset/limit and total/has_more. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like job_status, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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