youtube_reporting_list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description provides zero behavioral details — no mention of whether auth is required, whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, or what happens if no jobs exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely brief at six words, which is efficient, but it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness. A tool named youtube_reporting_list_jobs with the description 'List all active reporting jobs' is nearly tautological — the description adds only the 'active' and 'all' scope qualifiers beyond the name.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly adequate on the surface, but given no annotations, no output schema, and no differentiation from multiple reporting siblings, there should be more context about what a 'job' is, what the returned data contains, and how it relates to list_reports and list_types. The description is too thin to fully orient an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The schema coverage is 100% with nothing to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool since there is nothing the description needs to add.

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 states 'List all active reporting jobs' which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (reporting jobs), and the 'active' qualifier adds scope. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling youtube_reporting_list_reports or youtube_reporting_list_types, making differentiation ambiguous. The purpose is clear but not well-differentiated from its reporting siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other reporting tools (list_reports, list_types), no mention of prerequisites like authentication, and no note about whether it should be used before create_job or download. The description offers no usage context or exclusions whatsoever.

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