List Jobs Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add framing. It does add value by explaining that a non-empty result indicates a job stuck mid-transition, but says nothing about job lifecycle, staleness, or how results relate to in-flight start/stop calls.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the diagnostic meaning. The 'Returns: List of pending jobs with count' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the definition carries everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The only real gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many unit_* siblings.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could add on this dimension.

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 pending systemd jobs') and clarifies what that means in systemd terms ('stuck starts/stops/reloads'), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It is distinguishable in concept from unit_list_tool and failed_units_tool, though it never names a sibling.

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 a diagnostic use case, but the description never states when to call this instead of failed_units_tool or unit_status_tool. Usage must be inferred from context.

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