fow_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is a durable job inventory and does not schedule, retry, or cancel jobs.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with purpose first, then invocation, prerequisites, and effects. The trailing exact-help call is useful but slightly less essential, keeping it from a full 5.

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?

Given rich annotations, full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, invocation style, prerequisite, and side-effect boundaries. Return values are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 schema already documents the single project_id parameter thoroughly. The description only adds that the project must be selected explicitly, which is already implied by the schema description; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List the durable jobs already recorded for one lifecycle project.' It adds scope and an exclusion ('without scheduling additional work'), but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related fow_get_job sibling.

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?

Gives clear invocation guidance ('call directly without an operation argument') and a prerequisite ('Select an existing project'). It also implies when not to use it by saying it does not schedule work, though it names no sibling alternative explicitly.

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