list_index_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose scope ('across all sources') and what each entry contains, which is useful. However, it does not address filtering behavior, ordering, limits, or whether this is a purely read-only snapshot; those gaps keep it at minimum viable rather than strong.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the core action and return contents, the second gives concrete usage questions. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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?

There is an output schema, and the tool is simple with only one optional parameter. Still, the complete absence of parameter documentation is a real gap, and the description would be stronger if it mentioned that status filters results and what values are accepted. Overall adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has one optional 'status' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions that status can be used as a filter. It only lists status as an output field. Since schema coverage is low and the description does not compensate, an agent gets little guidance on how or why to supply this parameter.

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 and resource ('List indexing jobs') and clearly defines scope ('across all sources'). It enumerates the fields returned and includes concrete user questions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools.

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 gives clear use cases ('is treeweft busy?', 'what happened to my last index job?'), which tells an agent when to select this tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_index_job, wait_for_index_job, or list_job_errors, so exclusions/alternatives are not fully spelled out.

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