list_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 pagination behavior (limit, offset, and that it handles beyond 100-item pages) and the ordering. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or permissions, but the listing operation implies no side effects. The description is fairly transparent but could mention idempotency.

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 concise (approximately 6 sentences) and well-structured with a header line followed by a list of fields and then a bulleted filter list. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals show it exists), the description's list of returned fields is helpful but not strictly required. It covers filters and pagination thoroughly. The missing 'env' parameter is a gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains connection, status, limit, and offset in detail, including format and constraints. However, it omits the 'env' parameter entirely. The explanation of connection's matching rule (exactly one) is valuable. Overall adds meaning but incomplete due to missing parameter.

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 it lists recent sync jobs in newest-first order. It specifies the verb (list) and resource (sync jobs), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job (single job) and get_job_details (full details) by focusing on listing multiple jobs with key fields.

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 indicates when to use it (to list recent jobs) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_active_syncs or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The filtering options are described but no tactical advice on which tool to use for specific needs.

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