cleanuparr_list_jobs

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description adds value by noting that not only does it list jobs, but it also reports their current status. No contradictions and no misleading information; though it doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, the simple nature of the tool and the output schema cover most expectations.

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, direct sentence fully conveys the purpose without fluff. Immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no unnecessary words.

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 no-parameter list operation with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and the presence of an output schema eliminates the need to describe return values. The sibling context confirms this is a listing operation rather than a mutation.

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 baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, and there is no ambiguity for an agent to resolve.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('scheduled jobs') and adds 'current status' which is informative. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job' which retrieves a single job, and from action-oriented tools like 'trigger_job' or 'update_job_schedule'.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description: this is the general listing tool for scheduled jobs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using 'get_job' for a specific job's details, so guidance is only implicit.

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