arm_list_ci_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for transparency. It mentions the HTTP GET method (implying read-only) but does not disclose authentication needs, pagination, or how the required params affect behavior. The description's claim of listing 'all' jobs conflicts with the required projectName and title, which is a transparency gap.

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 very concise: two sentences, no fluff, and it front-loads the HTTP endpoint. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain return format, parameter interplay, or usage context. The required projectName and title are not mentioned in the description, despite being required, making the tool less complete than it should be.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Lists all CI jobs configured in ARM.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like arm_ci_job_history or arm_trigger_build, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like arm_ci_job_history or arm_latest_results. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen or what prerequisites exist.

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