artwork_job_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sort order ('newest active jobs first') and that jobs are persisted, but says nothing about filtering behavior, pagination/limits, how long jobs persist, or whether inactive jobs are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The ordering behavior is conveyed compactly without redundant phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. Minimum viable, but for a tool sitting in a dense cluster of artwork_job_* siblings, the description should at least signal how it relates to artwork_job_status.

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 schema-baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 persisted artwork jobs'), and the ordering clause clarifies scope beyond a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling artwork_job_status, which an agent could easily conflate with this tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as artwork_job_status (single job) versus this list tool. The only contextual hint is the ordering clause, which is not usage guidance.

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