datto_edr_jobs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying GET /api/jobs endpoint, which helps an agent understand it is a thin read pass-through, but it says nothing about paging behavior, default result volume, or what a job record contains.

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?

Two short sentences, resource and endpoint front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's state example, which keeps it just short of a 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?

Six optional parameters, nested where-filter, no output schema, and only two annotations. The description never explains what a background job represents, how paging results should be consumed, or that there is no corresponding jobs_get sibling (so detail must come from fields/where) — leaving real gaps for an agent planning a call.

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%, with skip/limit/order/where/fields all well documented including the nextSkip paging convention and LoopBack operators. The description's only parameter contribution is echoing the state="active" example already present in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 background jobs') and anchors it to the concrete endpoint GET /api/jobs, which is more precise than a generic 'list' label. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent list tools such as datto_edr_tasks_list or datto_edr_audit_log_list, 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?

The sentence 'Pass state "active" for running jobs' implies the common polling use case, but it is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over datto_edr_raw_request or the other *_list siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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