list_jobs

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as ordering by newest first, inclusion of failure reasons for failed jobs, and the specific fields returned. This helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value: it defines scope, details fields, and gives concrete examples. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (verb, state, archive, destination, bytes, timestamps, failure reason) and its use cases. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, this is complete.

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 already describes the limit parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does not mention the parameter, but that's acceptable as the schema is sufficient. Score is baseline 3.

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 recent background jobs (saves, verifies, restores) with specific fields and example questions, making its purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tapes or archive_detail by focusing on jobs.

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 provides explicit use cases, such as checking if a backup finished or why an upload failed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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