jobber_list_jobs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only retrieval operation and mentions the returned data fields, but it does not describe pagination behavior, default status handling, or output structure beyond the listed fields.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the filter capability with the exact allowed values. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it identifies the resource, returned fields, and filter options. Minor gaps like default pagination and implicit behavior when no status is supplied are secondary and largely covered by the schema.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating that status filtering is possible, but it does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 states the action ('List'), the resource ('jobs/work orders from Jobber'), and the included fields (status, client, schedule, totals), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that operate on clients, invoices, quotes, or that create/update jobs. The status filter list further clarifies scope.

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 clear context: use this tool to list Jobber jobs/work orders, optionally filtered by status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource specificity makes the primary use case obvious among the listed siblings.

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