skypilot_managed_job_queue

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond it: the refresh=True path hits the cluster and is explicitly 'slower but up-to-date.' It also enumerates what is returned (statuses, submission times, recovery info, counts), though it does not mention pagination limits or result caps.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is dense but each sentence carries information; it stops just short of ideal because the return-value sentence lists fields an existing output schema already covers.

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 an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, four parameters (job_ids, fields, all_users, skip_finished) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the refresh guidance is the most important piece, but the filtering parameters remain opaque to an agent.

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 carries the full explanatory burden, and it only partially does so. refresh gets real semantics (cluster fetch, slower but current) and limit/sort_by/sort_order are named with their purpose (pagination, sorting), but job_ids, fields, all_users, and skip_finished are never mentioned anywhere.

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 and resource ('List managed jobs and their statuses') and tags the API version ('v2 API'), which is the only thing separating it from the sibling skypilot_managed_job_queue_v1. It does not, however, explicitly tell the agent when v2 is preferred over v1 or over skypilot_job_queue, so the differentiation is suggestive rather than decisive.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the near-identical skypilot_managed_job_queue_v1 or skypilot_job_queue siblings. The only conditional guidance ('Set refresh=True...') is about a parameter's cost/latency tradeoff, not about tool selection, so an agent gets no routing help.

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