List Jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cost profile ('Uses few API calls (no per-job requests)'), the recursive expansion behavior, the output row shape, and per-filter semantics. Not a 5 because it doesn't state result-order, truncation at 'limit', or what happens on a nonexistent folder.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then one short line per filter — every sentence earns its place and the status enumeration is compressed into a single comma list. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose; the 'Each row' line is a useful addition rather than filler.

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 five-parameter read tool whose annotations and output schema already carry safety and return-shape, this is close to sufficient: cost, recursion, filters and row format are all covered. The remaining honest gaps are the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of any routing hint against the many sibling listing/discovery tools.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'instance' is documented in the schema), so the description carries most of the burden — and it does: it enumerates all seven allowed status values and explains folder prefixing and case-insensitive name matching. The gap is 'limit', which appears in the schema with a default of 100 and is never mentioned, so an agent has no idea whether it caps jobs returned.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('List jobs') and immediately qualifies scope with '(folders and multibranch projects are expanded)', which is precisely what distinguishes it from get_job or recent_builds. An agent knows it gets a flattened inventory of job paths, not builds or configs.

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?

Gives clear operating context: folder scoping ('start below this folder... Empty = whole instance'), status filtering, and substring matching. However it never names an alternative or exclusion — nothing tells the agent when to prefer find_jobs_by_scm or get_job over this, so routing among near-siblings is left to inference.

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