list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says jobs and statuses are returned, but it does not address pagination behavior, ordering, permissions, or the fact that the limit parameter means the result may not be all jobs despite the word 'all'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the resource and return content.

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 simple list tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not clarify that the limit parameter constrains results, leaving the 'list all' phrasing potentially misleading.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the limit parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 orchestrator jobs, with the useful addition that current statuses are included. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_task_status, but the core purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'List all orchestrator jobs' implies the tool is used to enumerate jobs, so some usage context is present. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_task_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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