job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'bounded output tails' behavior, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it does not disclose further behavioral details like return format or pagination, so it adds only moderate value.

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 consists of two tight sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second gives usage guidance for an alternative. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of structural data.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and two self-explanatory parameters, the description covers the core functionality and points to the relevant sibling for live use. It could mention limit defaults or pagination, but those are visible in the schema, so the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. The phrase 'bounded output tails' hints at tailLines, but it does not explain 'limit' or provide any additional semantics beyond what the parameter names imply. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tracked job history'), and adds 'bounded output tails,' which clarifies the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling job_watch by directing live-dashboard use to that tool, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly names job_watch as the alternative for live dashboards, giving a clear exclusion for this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use job_list beyond the implicit 'when you need tracked job history,' which is slightly less direct than a full when/when-not pair.

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