iccap_job_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a read-only-style list and specifies sort order ('newest first'), which is useful. However, it does not mention what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, or whether job status is included.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The key behavior ('list recent jobs') and ordering ('newest first') are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 operation with one optional parameter and no required inputs, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema and any detail about the returned job entries is a minor gap, but it is not critical for the basic listing use case.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is fully described by the input schema with type, default, minimum, and maximum. The description does not mention the parameter, but 'recent' and 'list' imply that limit controls how many jobs are returned. Schema coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is self-explanatory enough that the gap is minor.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent managed IC-CAP jobs') with an explicit ordering ('newest first'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like iccap_job_get, iccap_job_logs, or iccap_job_cancel beyond the verb 'list'.

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 the tool is for browsing recent jobs, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use it instead of related job tools. It lacks exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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