list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions this lists listings on two OSes (macOS/Linux) and returns exit status, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the return format details, pagination, or whether this is a pure read operation (which is likely but not stated explicitly).

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 appropriately concise—a functional summary plus one parameter explanation with a concrete example. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose. 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?

With a single optional parameter, an output schema present, and no nested objects, the tool is fairly simple. The description explains what the tool does and how the prefix parameter works, but doesn't describe the output shape or behavior on systems without launchd/systemd. For a moderately simple tool with no annotations, this is adequate but could add more behavioral detail.

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%, meaning the description must fully explain the prefix parameter. It does: 'only return jobs whose label starts with this string' with a concrete example ('com.mycompany.'). This is meaningful added value beyond the schema, which only says 'string, default empty'. The description makes the parameter's purpose and usage clear.

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 verb (list) and resource (scheduled jobs) and specifies it works on both launchd (macOS) and systemd (Linux), a useful cross-platform clarification. It also mentions exit status as part of the output. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_failing_jobs, though the scope is reasonably clear on its own.

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 via the prefix argument example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_failing_jobs or audit. The prefix example ('skip the operating system's own jobs') gives some contextual guidance but doesn't cover exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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