msf_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally, and an output schema exists. The description adds the useful hint that jobs can be further inspected or stopped via msf_rpc, but says nothing about whether finished jobs are included, whether the listing is scoped to the current session, or how large the result may be.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the follow-up routing second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond the verb+resource needed.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about what a "job" means in this context and how it relates to sibling concepts like sessions and processes.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of a "job ID" correctly indicates an identifier is needed for the follow-up msf_rpc calls rather than for this tool, which avoids confusion.

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 running jobs." The scope word "running" is a meaningful qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as msf_process_list, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The second sentence explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: use msf_rpc with job.info for details or job.stop to terminate a job by ID. That is concrete when-to-use-another-tool guidance. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., how jobs differ from processes/sessions) and of any stated prerequisites.

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