cadlens_list_jobs

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

Discloses the 100-job limit, newness ordering, and API key scoping, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or what each job entry includes, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and packs all key details (scope, order) without any filler. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and ordering constraints. It could mention the structure of returned job items, but given sibling tools and simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary param details.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('CAD parse jobs') with precise scoping ('100 most recent', 'newest first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job (single job) and delete_job (deletion).

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 implies usage for retrieving recent jobs but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_job or how it differs from listing via other means. Sibling names make the distinction inferable, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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