system.jobs.list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists scheduled jobs, omitting details such as authorization requirements, whether it returns active or all jobs, if it has side effects, or any rate limits.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary text; every word serves a function.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description is minimal and does not clarify the scope or content of the listed jobs (e.g., job names, status, schedule). In a system with many related tools, a bit more context would help the agent decide when to call this 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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by default. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it could hint at what the output contains. No demerit as the description is adequate for 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?

The description states 'Lista jobs agendados (consolidação, summary, etc.)' which clearly indicates the verb (lists) and resource (scheduled jobs). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like system.jobs.history (which likely lists job runs) or system.jobs.run, leaving ambiguity about whether it returns job definitions or instances.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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