List Image Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: 'Running jobs are never expired; finished ones are kept up to GPT_IMAGE_2_JOB_MAX / GPT_IMAGE_2_JOB_TTL_MS and are lost on server restart.' This discloses retention and ephemerality, which the agent would not know from the schema or annotations alone.

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 two sentences. The first front-loads the primary action and result fields; the second adds usage guidance and retention policy. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not detail return types. It covers scope, ordering, fields included, retention, and the key use case. For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to explain about inputs. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related details, which is fine because there are none.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('image jobs'), and adds specific detail: 'newest first', with 'state, prompt preview, and elapsed time'. It differentiates from siblings like generate_image (creation) and get_image_job (single retrieval) by scope, even without naming them explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'Useful after a reconnect or a context reset to recover a job_id instead of re-running — and paying for — a generation you already started.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies that get_image_job is for a known ID. Lacks explicit exclusion, so not a 5.

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