list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the default ordering ('best match first'). It says nothing about pagination, whether hidden jobs are excluded by default, required auth, or what fields come back — notable gaps for a 6-parameter read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler is structurally clean. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, so it is only adequate.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives an agent almost nothing beyond the ordering default. Missing are the meanings of the filter/sort parameters, pagination behavior, and the distinction from find_jobs.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'Best match first by default' weakly hints at the sort parameter's default, but search, status, min_match, limit, and show_hidden are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved jobs'), plus a scope hint that saved jobs are the domain. It does not differentiate from the sibling find_jobs, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether listing and finding are the same operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as find_jobs or job_details. The only implicit signal is the verb 'List' itself, which is the bare minimum.

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