fluig_jobs_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature and the underlying storage (QRTZ_TRIGGERS), which is useful context an agent can't get from the schema. However, it says nothing about auth/permissions, pagination behavior (rows default 30 lives only in the schema), or what a scheduled job record contains.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose comes first, then the filter, then the mental model for what is being read.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should sketch the return shape (job/trigger name, schedule, state) and the effect of the rows default. It omits both, leaving an agent unable to anticipate the result payload for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with env's enum explaining teste vs prod in detail and datasetId already documented. The description only re-frames datasetId in terms of DatasetSyncJob and adds the QRTZ_TRIGGERS analogy, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Lista os jobs agendados pela aplicação (Agendador de Tarefas)', plus the framing that it is the read equivalent of QRTZ_TRIGGERS. Against siblings fluig_job_add / fluig_job_delete / fluig_job_run, the list-vs-mutate distinction is unambiguous even without naming them.

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?

Gives a concrete narrowing rule ('Passe datasetId para ver só os DatasetSyncJob daquele dataset') but never states when to prefer this over inspecting via fluig_db_query or QRTZ_TRIGGERS directly, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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