job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that jobs are 'saved' and 'local', implying on-disk persistence scoped to the project directory. It says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether completed/cancelled jobs are included, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the verb and enumerated job types are front-loaded. Every word contributes to identifying the resource.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, but there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'job' record contains and that the returned identifiers are what feed job_get, job_cancel and job_retry. That linkage is missing, leaving the agent to guess how to act on the results.

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 is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that projectDir is an absolute path to a local video project. The description adds only the implicit confirmation that the listing is scoped to that directory. With one fully documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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") with a clearly scoped resource: saved local jobs, enumerated by type (render, transcription, color-comparison, cut-review, recording-index). This is far more informative than the bare name 'job_list'. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like job_get or the various draft_list/revision_list tools, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point for jobs within a project directory. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that job_get should be used once an ID is known, and no mention of whether jobs are filtered by status or type.

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