list_user_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states basic return fields but does not disclose pagination behavior (page/page_size parameters), authentication requirements (api_key param exists), or any rate limits or sorting behavior. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists return fields. No redundant or unnecessary information. Front-loaded and 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 6 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main purpose and return values. It omits explicit mention of pagination or filtering options but the schema handles those. For a list tool, it is fairly complete, but could note that results are paginated or that it only returns the user's own jobs (implied).

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 100% with all 6 parameters documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions that the tool returns IDs, queries, etc. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides parameter details.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all jobs submitted by you'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status (single job) and list_monitor_jobs (monitor-specific) by focusing on user's own job history. The return fields (IDs, queries, statuses, timestamps) add specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job_status or pull_results. The context of 'jobs submitted by you' implies usage for personal job history, but there is no mention of when not to use it or trade-offs compared to sibling tools.

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