list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: arrays are collapsed to one row, purpose is present only when submitted through this server, node/token limit information is included, and pending-job start estimates are explicitly described as unreliable. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or scope limitations beyond 'my' jobs, but it adds substantial value beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds only relevant output details and caveats. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying array handling, included job metadata, and pending-job caveats without unnecessary filler.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the listing returns. It covers the relevant returned information and caveats, including pending-job start estimates and reasons. Annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, leaving no major contextual gap for invoking the tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema requires no parameter explanation, and the description appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 and resource: listing the caller's running and pending jobs. It also adds specific output semantics such as arrays shown as one row, purpose, node/token limits, and pending-job fields. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like job_details or check_job, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope 'My running and pending jobs' and by the note about pending-job fields. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of job_details, check_job, wait_for_job, or other job-related siblings. The agent can infer a basic use case but must choose among alternatives without help from the description.

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