list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals almost nothing about behavior beyond listing a registry. The terms 'bounded' and 'retained' hint at retention limits, but the description never explains what jobs appear, whether terminal jobs are included, or how the registry is maintained. This is insufficient for a tool with four optional filtering parameters.

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 extremely short and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single cryptic phrase does not earn its place because it leaves core semantics unexplained. This is closer to under-specification than to efficient, high-value brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a list tool with four filtering parameters and many sibling tools. It does not clarify what a 'managed job' is, what 'bounded retained' means, how filtering parameters interact, or when listing jobs is the right operation compared to get_job_status and cancel_job. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only this description.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining what count, command_id, idempotency_key, and include_terminal mean. It provides no parameter information at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics, defaults, or filtering context.

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 states a clear action ('List') and a resource ('managed-job registry'), which identifies the tool's basic function. However, the phrase 'bounded retained' is opaque jargon that does not clarify what kinds of jobs are included, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get_job_status, start_job, or cancel_job beyond the obvious 'list' verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related job tools such as get_job_status, start_job, or cancel_job. The description does not mention filtering, retention semantics, or what distinguishes 'managed jobs' from other job-related queries, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the parameter names.

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