list_running_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond stating the resource scope it discloses nothing: no read-only assurance, no note on result size or pagination, no indication of whether the asset_type filter narrows output, and no hint of what a job record contains.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped by "currently running", with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool this covers the essential purpose, but with no annotations and no output schema there is no description of the returned job fields, ordering, or result limits. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so the single optional asset_type parameter is already documented, and the description adds no syntax, accepted values, or default behavior on top of it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ("List ... backup jobs") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ("currently running"), which implicitly separates it from a sibling like list_failed_jobs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Currently running" implies the use case (check in-flight jobs), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related questions such as failed jobs or completed jobs. The agent must infer routing from the adjective alone.

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