ashby_list_jobs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: the paginated list contract with has_more and next_cursor. It is transparent about the returned wrapper without going beyond what an agent needs.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences state purpose, use case, and response shape with no filler. The response line earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 read-only list tool, the description captures purpose, pagination behavior, and the response envelope completely. Combined with the self-describing schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 schema already documents limit, cursor, and status clearly. The description's mention of next_cursor reinforces pagination but does not add material meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence identifies a specific verb and resource ('List jobs from Ashby') and enumerates returned fields, making the core action unambiguous. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, though 'before looking at candidates' differentiates it from candidate-oriented tools.

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?

'Use this to discover what positions exist before looking at candidates' gives a clear intended use case and implies a candidate-search workflow context. It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but it provides enough placement guidance.

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