cortex_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful behavioral context: return shape ({data: CortexJob[], next_cursor}), pagination mechanics, and the cross-project scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then give the essential return shape and pagination instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers scope, ordering, filtering, mutability safety, return structure, and pagination continuation. An agent has everything needed to call and correctly page through this tool despite the lack of an output schema.

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 75% and includes descriptions for kind, cursor, and status. The description reinforces the meaning of status/kind as filters and explains how cursor relates to next_cursor, adding practical usage context beyond the schema. Limit remains implicitly clear.

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 ('List'), resource ('Cortex jobs'), and scope ('across accessible projects'), plus ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cortex_get_job (single job) and cortex_run_job (job creation/execution).

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 spells out when to use the tool: listing jobs with optional status/kind filtering and cursor-based pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like cortex_get_job for single-job retrieval, but the purpose and scope are clear enough to guide selection.

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