List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond them: 200-per-page size, newest-first ordering, the cursor contract (non-null nextCursor means older jobs exist), and the required read scope. It stops short of return-shape or rate-limit detail, which the output schema partially covers.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with purpose and pagination contract, zero filler. Every sentence carries usable information.

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 present, return values need not be explained, and the description still covers ordering, page size, pagination mechanics, and auth scope. Only the `origin` filter goes unmentioned, which the schema handles.

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 both params; baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the `before` cursor's origin from nextCursor but says nothing about the `origin` filter, adding only marginal value over the schema.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource ("List jobs") with extra scope detail: liveness, web url, page size, ordering. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling listing/reading tools such as jobs_get, jobs_tail, or jobs_brief, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing semantics and the description gives operational guidance (pass nextCursor back as `before`, needs the read scope), but it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to jobs_tail/jobs_get/jobs_brief.

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