List Background Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are 'most recent first' and include state, progress percent, and errors. This goes beyond the basic read-only hint, though it doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits.

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, concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The first sentence covers what it lists and the output details; the second sentence provides actionable usage examples. No filler words.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description fully covers the purpose, output, and practical usage. There is no missing critical information; the output schema handles return formats, and the annotations cover safety.

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 descriptive parameter comments. The description adds extra guidance for the 'state' parameter by giving concrete use cases (RUNNING for current activity, FAILED for failures). While limit and response_format are not further explained, the baseline 3 is elevated to 4 because of this added practical parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('TrueNAS background jobs') and provides concrete examples (scrubs, replications, updates). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_replication_tasks or list_scrub_tasks by covering all background jobs, not just one type.

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 gives explicit practical guidance: 'Use state=RUNNING to see what the NAS is doing right now, state=FAILED to find recent failures.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool with which parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusions/alternatives.

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