list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful durability context (jobs surviving/interrupted by a restart), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or the default limit despite there being an output schema it could complement.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the primary context. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is slightly indirect for a list operation.

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 one-optional-param list tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the trigger scenario adequately. It still omits the meaning of the limit parameter and any paging behavior, leaving a small but real 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% and the single 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it makes no mention of result count or paging behavior at all.

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 names the resource (durable jobs) and a use scenario, but the verb 'Find' is softer than the tool's actual list semantics and it never states that it returns a collection of jobs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_job, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the name alone.

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?

It gives a genuine trigger context ('after reconnecting', jobs interrupted by a restart), which is more than most tools offer. However, it never states when not to use it or points to get_job for retrieving a specific job, leaving the alternative-selection decision implicit.

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