List Jobs Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the stated return ('List of pending jobs with count') tells the agent what to expect. It does not mention privilege requirements or edge cases, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is adequate.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core action and purpose, then state the return value. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and return shape sufficiently. It could clarify what counts as 'pending' or how the count is computed, but these are minor gaps and do not hinder correct usage.

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 takes no parameters and the input schema fully documents this. With 0 parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids inventing any.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List pending systemd jobs'. It also adds a meaningful purpose ('reveals stuck starts/stops/reloads') that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on unit state or journal queries.

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 'reveals stuck starts/stops/reloads' implies when an agent might want this tool, but there is no explicit comparison with sibling tools like failed_units_tool or system_status_tool, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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