krita_list_diffusion_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context by clarifying that the tool only reads metadata and has no side effects on jobs ('Does not submit, cancel, or apply jobs'). 'Bounded page' also signals paginated, non-streaming behavior beyond the raw schema.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the explicit negative scope ('Does not submit, cancel, or apply jobs') earns its place by preventing confusion with mutating sibling tools.

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 listing operation, the description is largely complete given the annotations cover safety and the schema documents pagination constraints. It could go further by mentioning how results relate to sibling tools (e.g., fetching full results via krita_get_diffusion_result), but the core invocation context is sufficiently specified.

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. It partially does: 'bounded page' conveys the purpose of limit/offset, and 'for the document' identifies document_id. However, it does not explain instance_id or how pagination parameters interact, leaving some burden on the parameter names and schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('bounded page of existing AI Diffusion job metadata'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explicitly contrasts with mutation operations by stating 'Does not submit, cancel, or apply jobs,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_generate_diffusion and krita_apply_diffusion_result.

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 establishes when to use the tool: for reading a page of existing job metadata. It also provides clear exclusions by stating the tool does not submit, cancel, or apply jobs, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like krita_get_diffusion_result or krita_diffusion_status for related but distinct use cases.

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