background_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that 'run' executes one pass of the queue, indicating a one-time trigger. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like resource consumption or whether the mode query is read-only. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the two actions with no superfluous words. Every sentence is essential and adds value.

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's simplicity (single parameter with two enum values) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the basic functionality. It could mention what the mode query returns or what a 'pass' means, but it is still complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the enum parameter 'action': 'mode' queries the mode, 'run' triggers a run. This adds complete meaning beyond the enum names in the schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states two specific actions: querying the background job mode and triggering a worker run. The verb 'Query' and 'trigger' are distinct, and the resource 'background job' is named. It differentiates between the two modes well, and there is no confusion with sibling tools as they are unrelated.

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 explicitly states when to use each action: 'mode' for querying and 'run' for triggering a worker execution. However, it does not provide context on when to prefer this tool over others or any exclusions, but for its simple scope it is clear enough.

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