seerr_list_settings_jobs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe, read-only operation, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns only active jobs, if pagination applies, or if it requires prior setup). It is consistent but not informative beyond the annotation.

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, short phrase 'Get scheduled jobs' with no unnecessary words. It is direct and front-loaded, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The name 'seerr_list_settings_jobs' provides context that this is a settings-related listing. Yet the description could be slightly richer by clarifying what a scheduled job is in this system, but it's adequate for a simple list.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is effectively complete, and the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. This baseline is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Get scheduled jobs' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('scheduled jobs'), which directly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_job, cancel_job, and schedule_job by indicating a read/list operation rather than an action.

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 description implies a retrieval use case but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as run_job, cancel_job, or schedule_job. There is no mention of exclusions or context where another tool would be more appropriate, so guidance is weak.

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