list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns a trimmed set of fields, enumerates those fields, and explains pagination and filtering options. It does not mention error behavior for non-existent folders or auth requirements, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosure is 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?

The description is well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, return fields, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the Args block is efficiently organized. No fluff or redundancy.

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 schema descriptions, this description covers all necessary guidance: scope, when to use, output fields, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return value details are not the description's job. This is a complete, self-contained description for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains all 10 parameters, including defaults (batch_size=50, skip=0), accepted enum values for state and job_priority, ISO 8601 format for time filters, and the meaning of most_recent_first. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List and filter jobs within a single folder,' using a specific verb and resource while clearly delimiting scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_jobs_across_folders by explicitly stating the single-folder limitation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when the user asks about jobs in a specific, known folder' and directly names the alternative: 'Use get_jobs_across_folders instead when querying multiple folders or the entire tenant.' This is textbook usage differentiation.

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