list_my_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the parenthetical TSO STATUS comparison adds precise behavioral context about what is returned. It could go further by noting there are no side effects or prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the TSO comparison as a useful parenthetical without bloating the text.

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 zero-parameter list operation with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is listed, whose jobs are included, and the mainframe command it corresponds to, which is enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to add beyond the empty schema. The description also indirectly clarifies why no jobid is needed by referencing TSO STATUS with no jobid.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('jobs owned by the current userid'), and the TSO STATUS comparison clarifies exactly what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_job (a single job) and list_datasets/list_members (different resource types).

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 clear scope: it lists only the current user's jobs, equivalent to TSO STATUS with no jobid. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over check_job or fetch_sysout; usage timing is implied rather than directly guided.

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