jobs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by listing the fields returned and the possible status values, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits any note on pagination or result-size limits, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the filtering behavior, with essentially no filler. Only the '(Step 51/52)' internal reference fails to earn its place.

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 simple, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the optional filter, and the shape of the returned data. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note ordering or volume expectations for the job list.

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 schema declares no enum, so the description carries the full burden. It supplies the allowed values (idle/running/dead) for the single status parameter, which the schema does not, and marks the parameter as optional. That is meaningful compensation 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 (List) and resource (scheduled scan jobs), then enumerates the returned fields (cron, enabled, status, next run time, last result). That clearly separates it from job_create/job_trigger/job_update/job_remove, though it never names those siblings explicitly. The '(Step 51/52)' parenthetical is internal jargon that adds no clarity.

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?

It says the status filter is optional and enumerates the accepted values, which implies the common usage pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to job_create/job_update/job_trigger. An agent can infer this is the read path for jobs, but nothing confirms the boundary conditions.

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