list_my_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the data source (local history), the optional network call, automatic decryption, tagging, and warns that result content is untrusted external data. No contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences plus a warning, all front-loaded with the main purpose and key usage guidance. No redundant information.

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?

The description lacks details on the output format beyond tagging with source, and does not clarify the behavior of limit and kind_offset parameters. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, it could be more complete.

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 describes session_id and include_nostr, but limit and kind_offset are undocumented. The description adds context for include_nostr but does not mention limit or kind_offset, so it does not fully compensate for the 50% coverage gap.

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 it lists jobs submitted by the current agent from local history and explains the optional Nostr merge. It directly addresses the tool's specific scope but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use include_nostr=true (for jobs outside MCP or after cache wipe) and notes that the local cache avoids network roundtrips. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives.

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