List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add real behavioral content: the listing is scoped to the current session and explicitly excludes job output ('no output'), which the annotations do not convey.

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 compact sentence with the scoping constraint ('of the session') and field list front-loaded, ending with the notable exclusion. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and zero params plus rich annotations leave little else to cover. The only residual gap is the absence of any routing hint toward get_job or the mutation siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The enumerated field list is return-value detail rather than parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('background jobs of the session') and enumerates the visible fields (id, host, command, status), which distinguishes it from the singular get_job. It does not explicitly name a sibling it excludes, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no alternative named. An agent must infer on its own that this is the enumeration counterpart to get_job and that run/start/kill are the mutating siblings.

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