accelo_list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does explain the relationship model (jobs against companies, milestones, tasks) and gives a hint about expanding inline fields, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then a domain model explanation, followed by a structured Args section. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the domain model paragraph is somewhat dense and could be slightly more scannable.

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 complexity of the Accelo job model and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: it explains the relationship to companies and milestones, details the filter keys, and clarifies pagination parameters. However, it doesn't mention the return shape (e.g., what a job object contains) or any rate-limiting considerations, which leaves a small gap.

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 compensate for all parameters. It does this well: it documents the filter keys in detail (id, standing, against_type, against_id, paused, etc.), explains the 'fields' parameter with an example, describes 'search' as a title search, and clarifies that 'page' is 0-indexed and 'limit' maxes at 100. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List jobs (projects) from Accelo') and immediately clarifies the domain model (jobs are projects, always against a company). This distinguishes it from siblings like accelo_list_tasks or accelo_list_companies, which the agent can rule out based on this scoping.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate (listing jobs, with relationships to companies and milestones), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The domain model helps an agent understand the place of jobs in the hierarchy, which implicitly guides usage.

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