jobs_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuinely useful trait ('including interrupted work after restarts'), implying durability across host restarts. It does not say the operation is read-only, whether results are ordered newest-first, or how many are returned, which leaves real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping qualifier and the restart-durability note both earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the description omits ordering, pagination/limit behavior, and read-only status for a no-annotation tool. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to guess around.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, default 50) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains truncation, ordering, or what 'recent' means numerically. This is below the 0-parameter baseline of 4 because the single undocumented parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 ('List') and resource ('persisted jobs') with a scope qualifier ('recent'). This clearly separates it from the single-job siblings like job_status, job_log and job_wait, though it never names them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative of polling job_status for a known job id. The only hint is the 'recent persisted jobs' framing, which is implied usage at best.

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