list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only' as a key behavioral trait and adds context about the primary use case. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or potential performance implications, though the schema covers the paginate parameter and output schema exists.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action and read-only nature. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: core function, primary use case, filter examples, and alternative for pipeline views. No wasted words.

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 an output schema available and thoroughly described parameters, the description provides all necessary context: when to use the tool, how to filter, and when to choose an alternative. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete filter examples with expected values ('open'/'closed'/'draft') and pointing to helper tools (list_departments, list_offices) for filling department_id and office_id, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a specific action with a clear resource: 'List all jobs with optional filters. Read-only.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling itself as 'the primary tool for resolving job titles to job IDs' and explicitly directing pipeline-related queries to pipeline_summary.

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?

Excellent guidance: it tells the agent when to use this tool (when a user mentions a job by name) and provides an explicit alternative for pipeline views ('For pipeline views, use pipeline_summary with the job_id'). It also references list_departments and list_offices for obtaining filter IDs.

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