authoring-list-jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the full wildcard matching semantics and the fact that omitting jobName returns everything, which is the key invocation nuance for this tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then wildcard rules, then use case. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 output schema, but the description is adequate for correct invocation: action, parameter behavior, and intent are all covered. It does not mention pagination via 'first' or the shape of returned jobs, a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse example by spelling out all four wildcard forms ('*', 'myjob*', '*myjob', '*myjob*') and the omit-to-list-all behavior, directly disambiguating the most error-prone parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Lists Sitecore background jobs') plus the API surface (Authoring and Management API). The list-vs-get contrast with the sibling authoring-get-job is implied by 'Lists' but never made explicit, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives two concrete situations for use: finding out what the instance is busy with, and locating a job whose exact name is unknown. Clear context, but no explicit alternative (e.g. authoring-get-job) or when-not-to-use guidance.

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