job_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('cursor pagination') and filtering capability, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. It adequately describes core functionality but lacks operational details.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence adds key behavioral capabilities. Every word earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and key behaviors (pagination, filtering). However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention response format, error handling, or authentication needs to be more complete for agent usage.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'status filtering' and 'cursor pagination' which align with parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('jobs') with scope ('all jobs (open, closed, archived)'). It distinguishes from sibling 'job_search' by focusing on listing rather than searching, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'job_info' which retrieves a single job.

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 implies usage for listing jobs with pagination and filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'job_search' or 'job_info'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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