casino_list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication. More importantly, it claims 'Every known job' while the schema shows a default limit of 20, suggesting the list is limited and not actually every job. This creates a transparency gap about the tool's real behavior.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core subject ('Every known job') and delivers the key dimensions (order and state) efficiently. For a simple list tool, this is an ideal length and structure.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and an underspecified schema. It does not explain the limit parameter's effect, the read-only nature, or when to use it relative to siblings. Although an output schema exists, key operational context is missing, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, 'limit', has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description's phrase 'Every known job' actively obscures the fact that the limit parameter controls how many jobs are returned. The description provides no semantic help for the parameter.

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 indicates that the tool lists all known jobs with their current state, newest first. It implies a listing operation and distinguishes itself from siblings like casino_status or casino_results by covering all jobs rather than a specific one. It lacks a direct verb like 'list', but the intended purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives such as casino_status for a single job's status. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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