remote_job_list

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 that the listed entities are asynchronous jobs and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether completed/cancelled jobs are included. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest but real contribution.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the optional filter second; every word carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and only one optional parameter exists. Still, for a listing tool the description omits ordering, pagination/limits, and the treatment of finished jobs, which are the details an agent needs to use results 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter, and it does explain the semantic role: session_name restricts the listing to one session and is optional. However, it gives no hint about accepted identifier format (name vs id) or whether an unknown session yields an error or empty results.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List asynchronous jobs') and adds a scoping note about sessions, so the agent knows this is the enumeration counterpart to the job_start/job_status/job_result family. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 call this versus remote_job_status, remote_job_result, or remote_session_list, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent information is that the session filter is optional, which is really parameter semantics rather than routing guidance.

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