list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination but omits details like whether it is a read-only operation, rate limits, or if it includes all jobs (e.g., only active). The basic behaviors are covered, but deeper transparency is lacking.

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?

A single 10-word sentence conveys the entire purpose and key features without unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively summarizes capabilities. However, it does not mention return structure (e.g., list of jobs with pagination metadata), leaving a minor gap in completeness for an agent.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds only a high-level summary ('optional filtering, sorting, and cursor-based pagination') without new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'media jobs', and key features like filtering, sorting, and pagination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_job_status (single job) and generate_* (creation) by focusing on listing with options.

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 implies usage for retrieving multiple jobs with various filters, contrasting with sibling tools like get_job_status (singular) and wait_for_job (polling). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool names, leaving some guidance to the agent's inference.

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