List PJM jobs

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

The description is consistent with read-only annotations and adds the scoping detail of current vs completed jobs. However, it discloses no additional behavior such as pagination, filtering semantics, or response format.

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 one short sentence with no redundant phrases, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity with five optional filters and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully convey usage. It omits the meaning of parameters and the nature of the structured output.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (limit, states, historyDays, resourceGroup, includeSubjobs). The agent receives no semantic guidance for these parameters.

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 tool lists the account's current jobs or completed history, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the plural listing from single-job retrieval but doesn't explicitly differentiate from job stats or other list variants.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this over alternatives like get_job or get_job_stats. The description provides no exclusions or contextual cues beyond 'current or completed'.

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