list_job_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure in detail (file_path, error_kind, error_message, elapsed_s, occurred_at) and the read-only nature via the verb 'List.' It does not mention pagination behavior or how missing job IDs are handled, but the core behavioral traits are 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main action and enumerates the output fields; the second adds a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the simple read-only nature, the description covers the purpose, the returned entry fields, and the intended use case. Pagination defaults and required parameters are already present in the schema, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly listing the return fields.

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. It clarifies job_id as the identifier of a specific indexing job, but says nothing about limit/offset semantics or their defaults. The description adds useful meaning for the primary parameter but not for the pagination parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List the per-file errors recorded during a specific indexing job.' The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like list_index_jobs or get_index_job, and the 'which files failed?' and 'why?' clause reinforces the concrete use case.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for which files failed? and why? without grepping process logs.' This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of the full 5.

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