List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, and video links appear only for finished jobs, which is a non-obvious return-shape detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and in what order, followed by the practical use case. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the conditional video links, and it explains why an agent would call it. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit default, which is a minor remaining gap for a listing tool.

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 both limit (default 20, max 200) and the status enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (render jobs on this server), the ordering (newest first), and the fields returned (id, status, progress, video links for finished jobs). It is clearly distinct from the singular sibling tourwright_job, though that contrast is only implied by the plural phrasing rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: locating a previously rendered video or obtaining a job id to delete, which implicitly routes the agent toward tourwright_delete_job as the follow-up. There is no explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative, but the context is clear.

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