list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose ordering (newest first) and machine-local scope — genuine traits not derivable from the schema. It omits whether results are paginated, what a job entry looks like, and how many jobs typically exist, so the safety/behavior profile is only partially covered.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the resource plus ordering constraint is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the agent without the essentials for correct invocation: accepted state values, pagination behavior, and the shape of a returned job record. For a filterable list tool this leaves too much to guesswork.

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% and neither of the two parameters (limit, state) is mentioned in the description. An agent cannot tell from this text what values 'state' accepts or that 'limit' defaults to 20, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 the resource (jobs), the scope (on this machine) and the ordering (newest first), and pairs that with a concrete purpose: recovering a job id. That distinguishes it reasonably well from get_job_status and get_job_result, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Use this to recover a job id" gives one clear when-to-use case, which is more than most list tools offer. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative ways to reach a job (get_job_status, get_job_result), so the routing signal is implied rather than explicit.

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