ddflow_job_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the state model: exited carries the recorded exit code, gone means killed with no exit recorded, elsewhere means another host. That is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover auth/permissions, ordering, or response shape, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and status taxonomy; three short sentences, each contributing. The closing emphatic fragment ('never a reason to stop working the queue') is slightly rhetorical but does serve to prevent a real agent error.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by explaining the returned status values. It does not explain default filtering (ended jobs excluded unless 'all' is set) or ordering, leaving a small gap for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three optional parameters (all, item, as_agent) are already documented in structured data. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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 (listing long-running jobs) and immediately enumerates the live status taxonomy it returns. An agent can distinguish it from ddflow_job_add, ddflow_job_end, and ddflow_job_run without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit decision context ('Use it to decide whether to keep waiting, collect results, or restart') and guidance on how to react to a running job. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when NOT to call it, so it falls just below the top tier.

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