hcp_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: auto-pagination behavior and dollar conversion of prices. This helps agents understand what happens during execution and how results are presented.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with two high-value behavioral details: pagination and currency conversion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the main functional behavior, and the presence of an output schema and strong annotations reduces the burden on the text. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics for 8 optional filters leaves meaningful gaps, particularly for date format expectations and work_status values. This makes it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only says 'optional filters,' which gives general awareness but does not explain the meaning, format, or allowed values for any of the 8 parameters. The schema only provides types and titles, which is insufficient for correctly constructing filter values.

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 jobs and supports optional filters, which identifies the core verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hcp_get_job, but 'list jobs' is a sufficiently distinct operation that the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool: when a list of jobs is needed, with optional filters. It also explains pagination behavior, noting auto-pagination unless an explicit page is set. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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