list_saved_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful output behavior ('pipeline counts by status') and implies a read-only listing operation, but it omits potential behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether archived jobs are included by default.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the core action and the optional filters without waste. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure immediately gives the agent the most important 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It might be further improved by explicitly routing to get_saved_job for individual job details or search_jobs for broader job discovery, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining that 'status' filters by job status and 'search' is a title/company substring. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema names, though it does not detail matching behavior or edge cases.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the user's tracked jobs'), and a distinctive output characteristic ('pipeline counts by status'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_jobs (global search) and get_saved_job (single saved job).

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 clearly conveys when to use it: to list the current user's saved/tracked jobs, with optional filters by status or title/company substring. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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