list_jobs

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'List' implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. Adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and structured with an Args section. While concise, the Args block is slightly verbose but still clear and scannable.

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?

Output schema exists, so description need not cover return format. It covers purpose and parameters well. Could mention cluster context or permissions, but overall sufficient for a list operation.

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%, so description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Namespace to query (empty = all namespaces)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

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?

Description clearly states 'List Jobs' and enumerates the columns (NAMESPACE, NAME, COMPLETIONS, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_pods, list_services) by specifying the resource type (Jobs).

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the resource type, but no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, context).

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