List my jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context by specifying 'current' jobs and running/pending states, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and optional filters with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and schema descriptions for two of three parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It could better address the omitted 'profile' parameter or clarify that results are scoped to the caller, but the essential purpose and filters are present.

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?

The description mentions filtering by 'state or project,' which aligns with two of the three schema parameters, but it omits the 'profile' parameter entirely. Schema coverage is 67% and the state enum values are self-explanatory, so the description adds only modest value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb (show) and resource (current Slurm queue) and narrows scope to running/pending jobs, which implicitly separates it from ris_job_history. However, it does not name any sibling tool (e.g., ris_job_history or ris_worker_status) to make the distinction explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'Show your current Slurm queue' implies the use case, and 'optionally filtered by state or project' hints at how to narrow results. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no named sibling, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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