Tuanjie Job Manager

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by including 'cancel'. The description adds useful context that additional parameters are passed through unchanged, but it does not disclose side effects, return format, or whether non-cancel actions are safe reads.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and action list, making it quick to parse and appropriately sized.

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 an open and potentially destructive dispatcher with no output schema, the description lacks job targeting details, return/status semantics, and examples of supported pass-through parameters. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke all actions 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only states that extra parameters are passed through unchanged, without naming or describing action-specific parameters, leaving the agent without enough detail to construct them confidently.

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 specific verbs ('Checks, lists, or cancels') and identifies the resource ('asynchronous Bridge jobs'), with an explicit action list. It is clear about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as tuanjie_bridge_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or context for choosing among status/check/list/cancel. The usage context is only implied by the action names.

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