get_jobs_across_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are a trimmed set of fields, merged across folders, optionally sorted by StartTime, and that hours_back takes priority over days_back. It also explains the effect of most_recent_first with batch_size. It doesn't explicitly state read-only safety, but 'Query jobs' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then follows with a structured Args list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema defaults (e.g., batch_size default is not restated in prose). Every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, return details are not needed in the description. The description covers usage context, all parameters, merge behavior, and sorting. It is complete for a query tool, including enough detail for an agent to know exactly when and how to invoke it.

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 is the only documentation. It explains all 8 parameters meaningfully: state and source enumerate valid values, folder_names defaults to all non-workspace folders, and hours_back/days_back precedence is specified. most_recent_first semantics are clearly described. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Query jobs across multiple folders in a single call' — a specific verb, resource, and scope (multi-folder). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_jobs, making its unique purpose clear.

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?

It explicitly states this is the preferred tool for tenant-wide or multi-folder queries and gives a concrete when-not condition: 'Use list_jobs instead only when you already know the single folder and need advanced OData filtering or job_priority filtering.' This provides clear decision guidance.

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