List Replication Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces this with 'List'. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: it reveals that configurations are shown even when nothing is running, and that enabled status and last-run state are included. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences: the first is front-loaded with the core action and scope, the second provides a useful contrast with a sibling tool. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description covers purpose, scope, and the key distinction from a sibling. Nothing essential is missing for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema covers the single parameter response_format with 100% coverage, including an enum and default. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 it lists configured ZFS replication tasks, explains what these are in parentheses, and specifies the returned fields (direction, transport, enabled state, last-run state). It explicitly distinguishes from truenas_list_jobs, so it's specific and well-differentiated.

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 an explicit when-not: 'Unlike truenas_list_jobs, this shows the task CONFIGURATION even when nothing is running.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over a related alternative, which is exactly the kind of guidance needed.

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