jobs_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds real context beyond the annotation: the listing includes run history and cache metadata, and that triggering jobs is a separate, write-gated action. It does not cover pagination or result volume, which keeps it below a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing as follow-up. Every clause carries information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what comes back at a high level, and where to go for related operations. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or volume of the returned job list.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 scheduler jobs") and adds the payload scope ("with their run history and cache metadata"). It also names the sibling tools that cover adjacent tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from cache_list and jobs_run without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly routes two common follow-on intents: use cache_list for the files the jobs wrote, and use jobs_run to trigger jobs (only when writes are enabled). That is clear positive guidance with a stated precondition, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use jobs_list.

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