lax_list_jobs

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the existence of filtering: no default page size, no total-count or ordering behavior, no indication of what a 'job' record contains. The one useful signal is that filtering and pagination are optional.

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 compact sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true concision.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what a returned job looks like, what the default page size is, or whether results are ordered. Only the basic filtering/pagination concept is conveyed.

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 correctly maps two of the three parameters to concepts (track as a filter, limit/offset as pagination), but it does not explain the track enum values, the 1–100 limit bound, or the zero-based offset semantics.

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 specific resource ('LAX jobs'), and the mention of optional track/pagination filters scopes it further. It doesn't explicitly name lax_get_job as the single-item alternative, but the list-versus-get distinction is inferable from the tool names.

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 statement of when to use this tool rather than lax_get_job or lax_search_agents, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'with optional track and pagination filters' hints at context but does not give the agent any routing guidance.

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