list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral limitation (may omit a just-started operation) and describes the output verbosity levels for the detail parameter. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though 'list' implies it.

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?

Every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the most important usage distinction (get_job vs list), then explains filtering, polling, and detail levels. It is slightly long but densely packed with actionable information, with no redundant verbiage.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, how to filter, how to get more detail, and when to use an alternative. It omits explicit mention of the limit parameter and pagination behavior, but the 'most recent ops' phrasing and schema field imply a default-limited list. This is adequate for a list tool.

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 schema already covers the detail parameter with a rich description (75% coverage), but the description adds meaningful shorthand semantics: 'short=id+kind+state, medium=6 key fields, full=raw'. It also explains the status filter's practical use. This goes beyond schema, though limit and brandId are left to the schema.

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 states the tool lists background jobs for the active brand, using the specific verb 'List'. It immediately distinguishes itself from get_job by directing users to call get_job for a specific operation's status, which makes the tool's scope unambiguous and differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To check a SPECIFIC operation's status, call get_job with its operationId' and 'Use get_job with an operationId to poll a specific job'. It also explains filtering via status='pending' and 'completed', covering both selection and exclusion cases.

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