List long-running command jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that output is metadata-only and does not include logs, offering some behavioral insight. However, it omits details about permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 consists of two concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and clarifying output. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core function but lacks completeness regarding parameter semantics and use cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to make fully informed decisions.

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 a single parameter 'connectionName' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or usage. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the object 'known exec jobs and their statuses'. It also specifies the output nature ('metadata only, without logs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like exec_status that show a single job status.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exec_status or exec. It neither states prerequisites nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and title.

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