list_jobs

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: it discloses that submitted jobs are tracked with their working directory and log path, and that this record survives a context loss. That persistence guarantee is non-obvious and valuable, though pagination/limit behavior is not covered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the two job categories and then appends the most useful distinguishing detail (working directory, log path, context-loss persistence). Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers what the listing contains. The one gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which matters for an agent that needs to know whether results are truncated.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter has a default of 15 with no explanation anywhere. The description never mentions the limit, pagination, or any bound on results, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Tes jobs') and enumerates the two sources it covers: SLURM-queued jobs and jobs submitted via this server. This clearly separates it from singular siblings like job_status or job_output, though those siblings are not named 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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of what gets listed, giving an agent a reasonable sense of when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to job_status or job_output, and no prerequisites are stated.

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