list_engineering_jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the result set is capped at 100 and returns summaries rather than full data. It doesn't disclose pagination or truncation behavior when more than 100 jobs exist.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the scope (100 lightweight summaries) front-loaded before the routing hint. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers scope plus sibling routing. The only real gap is the unaddressed `project` filter, which an agent may need to use correctly.

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?

There is one parameter (`project`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what scoping it applies. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and here the filter semantics are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list engineering jobs) plus the shape of what comes back ('lightweight job summaries', capped at 100), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_engineering_job. An agent can distinguish this listing tool from the detail tool without opening either 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_engineering_job for full steps and native evidence') with the condition that selects it, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It stops short of saying when not to list at all, or how the optional `project` scope interacts with the call.

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