list_upload_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of whether it includes only active jobs or also completed ones, and no details about ordering, pagination, or other behavioral nuances. Minimal but adequate for a simple listing tool.

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 sentence, extremely concise, and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource and what is included (statuses). It could benefit from clarifying whether it includes all historical or only in-progress jobs, but given the output schema, the agent can infer the return shape. This is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'all' which defines the scope, but there is nothing else to add beyond the schema since no parameters exist. It adds no contradictory or misleading information.

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' and clearly identifies the resource 'background upload jobs' and includes 'statuses' as part of the result. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_upload_status' by the scope ('all' vs. a single job's status).

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 that this tool lists all background upload jobs, which contrasts with the sibling 'get_upload_status' that implies a single job status. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this to see all jobs', the 'all' wording and sibling context make the usage clear.

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