List Jobs

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

The description discloses the two-step internal process (XML-RPC jobs.filter() then REST API for details) and the optional detail fetching. The annotation readOnlyHint: true confirms read-only, and there is no contradiction. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 with two sentences: first states purpose, second gives implementation detail. No extraneous words. Front-loaded effectively.

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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers the operational flow and filtering capability. The existence of an output schema relieves the description from explaining return values, making it reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds general filtering mention but no additional semantic details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 Beaker jobs filtered by owner and other criteria. It is specific with verb 'list' and resource 'Beaker jobs', and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job_logs and get_job_status which focus on individual jobs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks direct contrast with siblings or scenarios for exclusion. A score of 3 is appropriate for this gap.

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