export_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It specifies output fields but does not disclose potential performance implications, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior for empty results. The description is moderately transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the main action and output formats, and efficiently conveys purpose, output fields, and usage without fluff.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides adequate context: output formats, fields, and intended use. It does not cover pagination, error handling, or limits, but is sufficient for a straightforward export tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, merely restating formats and fields. 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?

The description clearly states the tool exports job records as JSONL or JSON for analysis, listing included fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_jobs and search_jobs by focusing on bulk export for statistical analysis.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to pull job traces, compute success rates, and study failure modes,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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