job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them — that job input arguments are deliberately omitted from results — which tells the agent what it will not get back. It says nothing about ordering, whether finished jobs are retained, or result size, leaving real gaps.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the scope ('in-process') and the payload limit ('without input arguments') both front-loaded. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it names completion states and the withheld input arguments but not job identifiers the agent would need for a follow-up job_get, nor ordering or whether terminal jobs persist. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the shape it will work with.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema coverage figure of 100% is vacuous for an empty object.

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 in-process jobs plus their completion states. 'In-process' scopes it against job_submit/job_cancel, and the 'without input arguments' clause implies job_get returns the full record, so an agent can roughly distinguish them. It stops short of naming job_get as the alternative, so not 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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers this is the cheap overview to call before reaching for job_get, and that it covers in-flight jobs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of completed/archived jobs, and no prerequisite or rate-limit context.

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