Stuck jobs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds valuable context by defining what 'stuck' means and explaining that a stale heartbeat distinguishes abandoned from slow jobs — this helps the agent interpret output correctly. It does not disclose output format or pagination, but for a read-only tool with these annotations this is adequate.

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 compact—two sentences—and the key concept is front-loaded. The second sentence about heartbeat adds interpretive value rather than fluff. It could be slightly tighter, but every clause contributes meaning.

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 with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the core concept well but omits the limit parameter semantics and does not explicitly state that it returns a list of jobs. The heartbeat distinction is a nice addition, but the missing parameter explanation leaves an agent guessing about one of the two inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implicitly maps olderThanMinutes to 'active longer than a threshold', but does not explain the limit parameter's purpose (number of results). No defaults, ranges, or constraints are mentioned. The description largely focuses on output fields rather than parameter behavior, leaving one parameter entirely undocumented.

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 identifies the resource ('Jobs that have been active longer than a threshold') and the included fields (age, configured expiry, heartbeat age). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the intent is unambiguous and the heartbeat distinction differentiates it from related concepts like failed jobs. It lacks direct sibling differentiation, but the semantics of 'stuck' are specific enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like failed_jobs or queue_overview. The description implies use for investigating long-running jobs, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The heartbeat note hints at interpretation, not usage.

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