get_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the qualifier 'current' to metadata/status, implying a snapshot of the present state rather than historical data. However, it does not disclose potential partial failures, error behavior, or any special cases. With the annotation covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but as a concise statement it is efficient.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema (which defines the return format), and a read-only annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. It communicates the core action but lacks context on usage, parameter details, and any edge cases. For a simple read operation, it is adequate but not rich. More detail would help the agent call it correctly in all scenarios.

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 parameter 'job_ids' has no description in the schema. The tool description merely says 'selected jobs' without elaborating on the format, constraints, or meaning of job IDs. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on what values to provide, requiring it to guess or look elsewhere. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions but does not.

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 a specific action ('Return current metadata and status') on a specific resource ('selected jobs'), using a plural to indicate multiple jobs, which distinguishes it from the singular 'get_job' sibling. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job', 'list_jobs', or 'get_result'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameter alone.

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