List GitLab project jobs

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral hint is 'recent', which implies default limits or ordering, but the exact pagination behavior, default page size, and result ordering are left unspecified. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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, tightly-crafted 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and follows a clear Verb-Adjective-Noun-Preposition structure. Every word earns its place with zero fluff or redundancy. Slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, but as far as efficiency of expression goes, this is well done.

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?

Despite having rich annotations and an output schema to offload return-value documentation, the description still leaves significant gaps: job listing semantics across many pipelines, default pagination behavior, how 'recent' is defined, and how this differs from list_pipeline_jobs. With 7 parameters and 2 enums, the single-sentence description is not complete enough to prevent an agent from misusing default parameters.

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 a meager 14% (only 'project' is documented in-schema). With such low coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter interactions and defaults, but it only vaguely implies behavior via 'recent.' No context is given for how scope filters combine, what 'recent' means in terms of ordering, or how per_page/page work together. The description does not compensate for the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource and scope: 'recent jobs across all pipelines in a GitLab project.' The phrase 'across all pipelines' meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling list_pipeline_jobs (which targets a single pipeline), though it stops short of naming alternatives explicitly. Clear and specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many closely related siblings such as list_pipeline_jobs, list_pipeline_bridges, or get_job. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use context, no alternatives mentioned. Given the extensive sibling set with overlapping scopes, this omission forces agents to guess.

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