list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return format (list of job dicts with specific keys), the max history_days value, and the filter behavior. It does not mention potential edge cases or permissions, but as a read-only listing tool, the core side-effect-free nature is clear.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by parameter and return information. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler.

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 list tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, parameters, and return keys. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the output schema likely covers return details. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the list is paginated or sorted.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: history_days (include completed jobs from past N days, max 90) and rscgrp (filter by resource group name). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'List jobs for the current user.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_job_status (single job) or list_files, and it adds scope ('current user' and filter parameters).

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 description provides context on what parameters affect the result (history_days, rscgrp), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_job_status or read_job_output. Usage is implied by the listing action, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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