cleanuparr_jobs

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 adds useful constraints such as 'Seeker cannot be manually triggered' and describes the replace semantics for update_job_schedule, but it omits details on auth requirements, side effects, or error conditions.

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 concise and well-structured, using a bulleted list to break down each operation. Each line is short, focused, and free of unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all five operations and highlights a key constraint (Seeker cannot be triggered manually), but it does not fully specify the shape of the JobSchedule DTO needed for start_job and update_job_schedule. While an output schema exists, the input-side ambiguity for complex operations makes the description only partially complete.

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?

With the schema providing zero coverage for the arguments dictionary, the description compensates by naming the parameters for each operation (job_type, schedule) and listing the enumerable job_type values. It references JobSchedule DTO but does not detail its structure, leaving some ambiguity for constructing valid schedule objects.

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 identifies this tool as handling cleanuparr jobs operations and enumerates five distinct sub-operations (get, list, start, trigger, update) with precise wording. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on other Cleanuparr resources such as config, health, or stats.

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 implies the tool is for managing Cleanuparr jobs through its operation list, but it does not provide explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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