list_file_job_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this reasonably by stating that the operation returns every job report for one file and that footprintId uniquely identifies the file across renames and transcodes. It does not mention ordering or output size, but for a simple listing operation this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful endpoint reference and a compact explanation of footprintId. There is no wordiness or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 has a single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the necessary context to invoke it correctly: what it lists, how to obtain the footprintId, and why footprintId is the right identifier. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully describes footprint_id as 'File footprintId, from get_file', so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds value by explaining that footprintId identifies the file across renames and transcodes, giving the agent deeper context for the parameter's meaning.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: list every job report for one file. It also names the endpoint and explains the footprintId concept, which helps distinguish this from siblings like search_job_reports or get_job_report.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: after retrieving a file via get_file, to see all job reports tied to that file. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or call out alternatives for cross-file search, but the prerequisite is clear.

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