mz_jobs

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 that the tool lists recent jobs and that limit caps the count, but it does not mention ordering, whether the list is read-only, whether it includes running/completed/failed jobs, or any side effects. For a listing tool this is a moderate gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal but useful. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit notes on ordering or status filtering.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of what fields are returned, how jobs are ordered, or whether the list includes all statuses. Given the sibling tools for job status/log/kill, an agent would benefit from knowing what 'recent jobs' means in terms of status and time window.

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 does explain the only parameter, limit, with a default of 20, which matches the schema. However, it adds no detail about allowed range, semantics of 'recent', or how the limit interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the single parameter is at least explained.

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 ('列出' = list) and resource ('最近的作业' = recent jobs), and clarifies the scope by enumerating job types (模拟/批量/工具箱). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like mz_job_status or mz_job_log, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: call this to list recent jobs, and the limit parameter controls how many are returned. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus mz_job_status, mz_job_log, or mz_progress, so the agent must infer the distinction from the job-type enumeration.

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