list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (optional folder scoping) but omits safety profile, read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects. It doesn't indicate that listing is a safe read-only operation.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and include a precise example. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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?

Given the simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential functionality and parameter semantics. It doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema, but could add a hint about the listing behavior (e.g., returns all jobs) for extra completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly explaining the folder parameter and giving a concrete example ('team/app'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Jenkins jobs' and adds scope via the optional folder path, making it clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_job or list_builds.

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 provides a clear primary use case but gives no guidance on when to use list_jobs versus alternatives (e.g., get_job for a single job, list_builds for build history). No exclusions or alternative references are included.

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