list_parse_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: it queries only local records, does not read source files or TextIn, and does not resubmit or resume jobs. It further warns that status is not proof of remote liveness and that completed/partial does not guarantee cache-file integrity, which is high-value operational context.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose and the when/when-not routing come first, followed by status caveats. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the multi-clause status discussion is slightly heavy for a list tool.

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 values need not be explained. The description covers the retrieval flow, local-only constraint, status interpretation caveats, and downstream tool routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that document_id comes from list_documents and that offset drives pagination (next_offset), which adds real value, but it never explains limit semantics or its default. Partial compensation for a fully undocumented schema.

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 and resource: cross-session recovery of saved parse job IDs, mode, and status for a given document. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings parse_document, get_job, and read_document, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (call list_documents first to obtain the material ID) and pagination flow (read next_offset). It names alternatives with conditions: use read_document for existing results, get_job for other statuses, and explicitly warns not to call parse_document just to recover IDs.

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