codex_job_list

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it's free, makes no model call, explains the expiration TTL (default 24h), per-workspace soft cap (default 50, clamped 1-1000), eviction policy for terminal records, and that running jobs are never evicted. This fully discloses limitations and transient behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second line gives usage guidance, then essential behavioral details in a focused paragraph. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral nuances, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (workspace_root). The description adds minor context about fallback behavior to server's cwd but does not significantly extend the schema's own documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List the background jobs known for this workspace, newest first,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_job_status and codex_job_result by focusing on listing all jobs rather than querying individual jobs or results.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to recover job_ids lost across context compaction or interruption,' giving a concrete use case. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the usage context is clear and helpful.

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