List applied jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the data comes from a local tracker file (~/.waas-mcp/applied.json), implying a local read operation with no network dependency, and 'List' signals non-destructive behavior. It does not mention ordering or return format, but the core behavioral context is covered.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the useful local tracker path. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter, local-only list operation, the description is largely complete: it states what is listed, the scope, and the data source. The only minor gap is the absence of return-shape details, since no output schema exists, but for a simple list operation this is not a significant obstacle.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description appropriately has nothing to add beyond confirming the scope.

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 a clear resource ('jobs you've submitted via this MCP'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like waas_search and waas_get_job by scoping to the user's own submitted applications. The local tracker path further disambiguates its exact domain.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for listing jobs submitted through this MCP and stored locally, which implies it is the right choice when tracking one's own applications rather than searching all jobs. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' statement, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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