Lists jobs sent from Jw_cad, where each entry is an 外部変形 run awaiting a response, so agents can track and process pending batch requests.
List jobs sent from Jw_cad (each = one 外部変形 run waiting for a response).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exchange | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/list operation via 'List' and notes the pending-response state, but discloses nothing about permissions, ordering, filtering, or what happens to listed jobs. Significant gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it leaves the parameter and behavior unexplained.
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 list tool with no output schema this is roughly adequate - it tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually. However, the lone undocumented parameter and lack of any guidance on the pending-job workflow leave it thin for coordinated use with gaihen_respond/gaihen_cancel.
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 is one optional parameter (`exchange`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what filtering by exchange would do. Because the schema (and description) leave the parameter undocumented, an agent cannot know how to scope the list.
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 ('List jobs sent from Jw_cad') and adds a clarifying definition of what a job is (one 外部変形 run awaiting a response). It is understandable on its own, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like gaihen_status or gaihen_read.
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 parenthetical that jobs are 'waiting for a response' implies usage (check pending work before responding), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direction to alternatives like gaihen_status or gaihen_respond. Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.