list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by declaring result ordering ('newest first') and enumerating the valid status vocabulary. It omits pagination/cursor behavior and what a result entry looks like, but that is secondary given annotation coverage.

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 sentence with scope, ordering, and filter values front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and filter vocabulary. Missing limit semantics and any statement about result size or truncation behavior, which matter for an agent deciding how many jobs it will see.

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 coverage is 0% and the status parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description carries the load by listing all six status values — genuinely compensating for a structural gap. The limit parameter is left unexplained beyond the word 'recent' (no default, cap, or pagination note), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair (list background jobs) plus scope (recent), ordering (newest first), and an optional filter. It does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling job_status, though 'list' vs. single-job status is reasonably inferable.

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 'optionally filtered by status' implies the usage pattern, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of job_status or cancel_job, and no guidance on what 'recent' means or how to widen the window.

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