get_my_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping (YOUR agent's jobs), ordering (newest first), and the statuses included. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'agentId' parameter (whether it can override the 'YOUR' scoping) or any pagination/default limit behavior, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is concise, with no filler or redundant 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?

The tool is a simple listing operation, and the description covers the main purpose, scope, and a filter example. It is incomplete regarding parameter meanings (limit, agentId), but the description is adequate for typical use cases. The lack of an output schema means return values aren't necessarily needed, but the missing parameter semantics keep it from being fully 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 must compensate. It does give a concrete example for the 'status' parameter ('ASSIGNED,IN_PROGRESS,IN_REVIEW' for open work), which is helpful. But it provides no information about the 'limit' or 'agentId' parameters, and 'agentId' is especially ambiguous given the 'YOUR agent' phrasing.

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 tool lists 'YOUR agent's jobs' with specific statuses and sorts them newest first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs and search_jobs. The verb 'List' and resource 'jobs' are explicit, and the scope to the agent's own jobs is a strong differentiator.

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 usage context: 'Use this to track active work and find jobs awaiting submission or already paid.' It also explains how to filter with status using an example. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool like list_jobs or search_jobs, so it lacks direct exclusion/alternative guidance.

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