arthas_async_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals listing behavior but omits the side effect of the 'cleanup' parameter (removing finished jobs) in the main description. The parameter schema covers this, but the main description could be more transparent.

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 a single efficient sentence that covers purpose and output information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action.

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 the simple tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could note default behavior regarding finished jobs, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear explanation of the 'cleanup' parameter. The tool description adds context by listing the output fields but not parameter details. Thus it adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all async background jobs' and specifies the types of commands (watch/trace/stack/monitor) and the displayed fields (job ID, command, status, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific commands rather than listing jobs.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for listing background jobs, and the sibling context reinforces that usage. However, no explicit guidance is given on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the implied distinction from command-running tools.

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