list_completed_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists completed jobs and optionally filters, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'list'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the parameter explanation is concise. No waste.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers purpose and parameter. However, with no output schema or annotations, the absence of return value details leaves a gap for agents that need to use the results with other job tools.

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 description fully explains the tool_filter parameter with examples ('nmap', 'nikto', '' for all), compensating for the zero schema coverage. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema field.

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 the tool lists completed jobs and optionally filters by tool name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_jobs (which likely lists all jobs) and get_job_status by focusing on completed jobs.

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 implies usage for retrieving completed jobs but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_jobs or other job-related tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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