get_background_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not disclose behaviors like whether this is read-only (it implies retrieval, so likely safe), how results are ordered, or if there are any side effects. The description is clear about the action (retrieves) but lacks depth on return format or filtering, though the tool has no parameters.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what it retrieves (jobs) and their states, but could mention whether it returns a list or counts, though without an output schema, the description does enough to guide basic usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description covers the full schema (100% coverage with no properties). The description clarifies the scope (server cluster) and job states, adding meaning beyond the empty schema, which justifies a score above the baseline for no params.

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 retrieves media processing jobs, specifying the job states (active, pending, completed) and the resource (persistent media processing jobs on the server cluster). It distinguishes from siblings like get_plex_activity or get_library_analytics, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to check on media processing jobs—but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_job_status or execute_next_job_step. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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