Workflows: jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that it returns the 10 most recent runs, their statuses, start time, errors, and per-step status/error/log. It omits pagination or permission details, but these are not essential here.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the purpose and return contents; the second front-loads the usage context. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the tool returns: job history, statuses, start times, errors, and step-level details. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, it gives the agent everything needed to call the tool 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 coverage is 100% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the schema itself documents that the workflow ID can be found with workflows_list. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'View job history for a workflow.' It also specifies the returned scope (10 most recent runs, their statuses and steps), making it easy to distinguish from related workflow tools like workflows_trigger or workflows_get.

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 clear usage context: 'Use it after `workflows_trigger`, or when an event or schedule should have fired.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and ties it to a sibling trigger tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for other diagnostic needs.

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