list_jobs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds only 'recent' and optional status filtering, which provides modest behavioral context but does not address ordering guarantees, pagination, or how 'recent' is defined. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'List', 'recent jobs', and 'optionally filtered by status' all add useful scope without 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it leaves the notion of 'recent' undefined, does not specify valid status values, and gives no mention of how limit affects results. These are small but real gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions status filtering but does not explain the limit parameter or the possible values/format of status. The schema's property names, types, and defaults provide some guidance, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('List') and resource ('jobs') and adds the scoping qualifier 'recent' plus an optional status filter. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_job, cancel_job, and get_job, which represent different operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_job/get_jobs should be used for retrieving details of specific jobs, nor does it specify when the status filter is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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