list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a listing operation and filters, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (page/per_page), how filters combine, or any response format. For a read-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficiently transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the action, filters, and a use case, though it omits some critical details that would make it more complete.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description only scratches the surface. It fails to clarify pagination, flow_id semantics, output shape, or how this tool relates to get_job. The agent is left with too many open questions to invoke it reliably in unfamiliar contexts.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions recipe_id, status, and date range but omits flow_id, page, and per_page entirely. Since pagination and flow_id are left unexplained and the coverage gap is large, this scores low.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (jobs), and mentions optional filters, making the core action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this list tool from its sibling get_job (singular), so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Useful for monitoring recipe execution history' gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, but it provides no exclusions or alternatives. There is no guidance on when to choose list_jobs over get_job or other list tools, leaving the usage guidance only implied.

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