list_running_jobs

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

The tool has no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly states it lists 'currently running' jobs, implying a read-only snapshot. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. For a straightforward list endpoint, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 consists of two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence defines the primary purpose, and the second provides concrete examples. Every word adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope (all devices), and job categories. With no output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it could mention that results may be paginated (implied by page_size parameter) or that only currently executing jobs are returned, but this is not a major gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (device_filter, job_type, page_size) with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'currently running jobs across all devices'. It enumerates examples (scripting tasks, patch installations) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_device_jobs' that might target specific devices or job states.

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 implies usage for querying running jobs across all devices, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_device_jobs' or when not to use it (e.g., for historical jobs). No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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