jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait, the implicit filter to items the caller sent or received, but says nothing about whether the call is a safe read, pagination behavior (limit defaults to 50), ordering, or how delivery state is represented. This is thin for an unannotated 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the scoping clause is placed where it is immediately visible. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being purely efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation the description leaves the agent guessing about read semantics, result volume, and the meaning of its two inputs. For a 2-parameter query tool this is under-specified.

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 both parameters (limit, recipient) are undocumented. The description's 'only those you sent or received' loosely gestures at recipient scoping but does not explain what the recipient parameter accepts or how limit interacts with the result set, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description identifies the resource ('addressed items') and a key attribute ('delivery state'), and scopes it to items the caller sent or received. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, retrieves, or inspects jobs, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like inbox or history that plausibly return similar data.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named, despite a crowded sibling set (inbox, history, next_task) that overlaps in subject matter. The parenthetical scope note hints at filtering but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over those.

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