job_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the session scope and ordering, which are behavioral constraints. The word 'list' implies read-only, and there are no side effects described, which is appropriate for a 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the operation, scope, and ordering. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff 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?

For a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context: what is listed, the session scope, and sort order. It lacks detail on the return format, but this is not critical for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters since there are none, and nothing more is needed.

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', the resource 'background jobs', and specific scope 'in this editor session' with ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_status and job_cancel.

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 the use case: when you need to enumerate background jobs from the current editor session. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and sufficient for a simple list operation.

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