skypilot_managed_job_queue_v1

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds value beyond that: the return is a flat list with no pagination or sorting, and refresh=True pulls the latest state from the cluster. It stops short of explaining what refresh=False does (cached/stale), which would be the last behavioral gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape before the usage condition and the refresh hint. No filler, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately absent. However, with 0% schema coverage on a 4-parameter tool, three filter parameters go entirely undescribed, which is a meaningful completeness gap for a listing tool an agent must filter correctly.

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 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and covers only refresh. The filtering parameters job_ids, all_users and skip_finished are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess at their semantics.

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+resource ('List managed jobs and their statuses') and pins the variant with '(v1 API)'. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling skypilot_managed_job_queue via the v1/compatibility framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'for compatibility with older API servers or when the simpler return format is preferred.' That gives a real selection condition. It lacks an explicit alternative ('use X otherwise'), so it falls short of a 5.

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