colab_job_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states scope ('started on this VM') and does not disclose that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or free of side effects, nor whether it requires session context or paginates results.

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, appropriately sized for a list operation. It communicates the core action and scope without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Although an output schema exists to cover return values and no annotations need reconciling, the description still leaves the session parameter unexplained and gives no routing guidance among the four sibling job tools. This is incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool and where it fits in the job-management workflow.

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% and the single optional 'session' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description says 'all' jobs and never explains what the session parameter filters or means, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (List) and resource (background jobs) scoped to 'this VM', which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like colab_job_start, colab_job_cancel, and colab_job_logs. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or clarify how it relates to colab_job_status, so it stops short 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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus colab_job_status, colab_job_logs, or colab_job_cancel. It also does not mention that listing jobs is useful for discovering job IDs required by the other job tools.

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