list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic listing action and reveals nothing about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or output specifics beyond what the schema might convey. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be used in production environments.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it maximally concise and well-structured for its scope.

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 tool is fairly simple and the presence of an output schema covers return values. However, the description fails to mention the role of cluster_alias or provide any operational context, making it minimally adequate but not complete for a tool with optional cluster selection and many sibling list tools.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameters. It adds meaning to the 'namespace' parameter by saying 'in a namespace,' but completely ignores 'cluster_alias,' which remains unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 'List all Jobs in a namespace.' clearly states the action (list), the resource (Jobs), and the scope (a namespace). It is specific enough to distinguish from get_job (singular) and list_cronjobs (different resource), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 sibling tools like list_cronjobs or get_job. The description omits any context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions, so it provides no usage direction.

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