List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that — result ordering and the fact that full answers are excluded — but says nothing about the default page size of 10, the 50 cap, or how to page further.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope and ordering come first. Nothing in it is redundant with the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the phrase "without their full answers" is the only hint at return shape. For a list tool with two undocumented-in-schema parameters, the description should at least cover filtering and paging behavior, which it does not.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it mentions neither `limit` nor `status`. An agent would not learn from the description that results can be filtered by job status at all; the enum values are self-explanatory but the filtering capability is only discoverable by reading 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?

Specific verb+resource ("List recent jobs") plus ordering ("newest first") and a scope qualifier ("without their full answers") that signals a summary view. It does not name or contrast with siblings like get_job or list_sessions, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 omission of full answers implicitly routes detail-seeking agents to get_job, but that is never stated as an alternative or condition. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the status filter as a selection criterion.

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