hydra_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what constitutes a job and what the output looks like ('relative paths, usable as they are in the other tools'). This is useful for an agent deciding how to chain results downstream.

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 short sentences carry all the essential information: the action, the scope, the defining characteristic of a job, and the output format. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description tells the agent everything it needs: what is listed, how jobs are recognized, and how the returned paths can be used downstream. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the Hydra ETL jobs present in the workspace.' It also defines a job as 'a folder holding a pipeline.yaml,' which disambiguates it from sibling list tools like hydra_list_operations, hydra_list_connectors, and hydra_list_actions.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for discovering Hydra ETL jobs in the workspace. It also explains that the returned relative paths are directly usable in other tools, which is practical guidance for when to use the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough from the definition.

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