List PRS jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully specified. The description adds context about it being server-process-scoped and the recovery scenario for job_id, which enriches the behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: first states what it does, second gives a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and a key usage scenario. It mentions both 'scoring/download jobs' and the recovery of job_id, which is complete for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. Per guidelines, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there is no missing parameter information.

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 description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('recent scoring/download jobs on this server process'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prs_job_status' or 'search_scores'. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides a concrete use case: 'Use after a client timeout to recover the job_id instead of starting the same compute again.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool, a clear guideline that adds value beyond the basic purpose.

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