list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide useful behavioral details: ordering ('newest first'), default limit (50), and accepted status values. However, it omits potential details like pagination beyond the limit, what 'recent' means in terms of time window, or whether the tool is read-only (though 'List' implies this).

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is compact and each line earns its place. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, ordering, filtering, and parameter options. However, it leaves ambiguity around the 'recent' window and does not mention pagination or offset support, which could be relevant for large result sets. These gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: status lists allowed values (queued/running/succeeded/failed) and clarifies omission means 'all'; limit states the default (50) and purpose. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 'jobs' and states ordering ('newest first') plus an optional filter by status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_jobs by making its scope explicit.

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 description implies usage (to list recent jobs, optionally filtered by status) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_jobs or other job-related tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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