edf_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — interrupted jobs are retained across server shutdown — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or freshness of the 'progress' figures.

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, no redundancy, and the core purpose ('List saved EDF automation jobs') is front-loaded before the retention caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. With no output schema, it could say a bit more about what each listed job contains (status fields, ordering), which is the only remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not invent or describe parameters that do not exist.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'List saved EDF automation jobs and their progress' — which is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling edf_get_job and from edf_launch/edf_cancel_job. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'List' — an agent can infer this is the enumerate-all-jobs call, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus edf_get_job (single job), edf_status, or edf_cancel_job. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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