list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states basic behavior (list, order, filter) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there is pagination, rate limits, or what fields are returned. The transparency is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional filter. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and filter option. However, it omits important context like whether pagination exists, what the return format is (list of job IDs or full objects), and if there are any limits. This is adequate but not complete.

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% for the 'state' parameter, but the description adds significant meaning by listing valid enum values ('submitted/running/completed/failed/canceled'), which the schema lacks. This enables proper usage beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'List known async jobs, most recent first' with a specific verb (list) and resource (async jobs), and mentions an optional filter. This differentiates from sibling tools like get_job_status (single job) and cancel_job (cancel operation).

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 listing jobs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job_status for specific jobs. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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