list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that results can be capped, but says nothing about what happens when the cap is hit (silent truncation vs. a truncation notice), result ordering, or whether filtering is server-side versus applied client-side after retrieval.

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 short sentences, zero preamble, purpose front-loaded before the cap note. Slightly thin rather than bloated; the only weak element is the unqualified "supports result capping" phrase, which could be replaced with something load-bearing.

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?

Six optional parameters at full schema coverage and no output schema means the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke. But for a listing tool it omits things an agent needs to reason about results: default cap value, result ordering, and truncation behavior, which the sibling-heavy context makes more consequential.

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 100%, so every parameter including the environment pointer and returnCode formats is already documented in the schema. The description's filter list duplicates that rather than adding semantics (e.g., how filters combine, whether status filtering is post-retrieval). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List z/OS batch jobs") and enumerates the filter axes, which maps cleanly to the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like find_failed_jobs or get_user_jobs_summary, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite the sibling set containing several overlapping job-listing tools (find_failed_jobs, get_user_jobs_summary, scheduler_job_status). "Supports result capping" is a capability note, not usage guidance.

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