gcloud_dataflow_jobs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope; it does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether read-only behavior is guaranteed. For a list operation, these are significant omissions.

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 is a single sentence of 7 words—extremely concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, maximum results, or error handling. Given the tool's low complexity, a 3 (minimal viable) is fair, but gaps in behavioral context reduce higher scores.

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?

Both parameters ('region' and 'status') have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their types, defaults, and enums. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists Dataflow jobs in the current project. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Dataflow jobs'), and the scope is explicit. Among siblings, it stands apart from dataflow_jobs_describe and dataflow_jobs_cancel, making differentiation straightforward.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gcloud_dataflow_jobs_describe or gcloud_dataflow_jobs_cancel. No context about filtering prerequisites, or scenarios where listing is appropriate. The description is too terse to guide an agent on selection trade-offs.

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