list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: it filters results through MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS, omits rather than errors on disallowed jobs, and explicitly limits payloads by excluding plugin action/property data. It does not mention pagination, result-size limits, or auth requirements, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by return fields and behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the tool 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating returned fields (name, full path, URL, build colour) and the allowlist filtering behavior. It leaves pagination and error/auth conditions unaddressed, so it is good but not fully complete for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone 'folder' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: it specifies the expected format ('full name'), gives a concrete example ('Platform'), and defines the effect (list its immediate children), though the 'full name' vs returned 'full path' phrasing is slightly ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List jobs') with an explicit scope qualifier ('visible to this server, optionally within a folder'). It is easy to distinguish from get_job or list_running_builds by the scope, though it never names a sibling directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tells the agent exactly when and how to use the folder argument ('Pass a folder's full name, for example "Platform", to list its immediate children'), which is clear conditional guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool in favor of a sibling such as get_job, so no explicit exclusions.

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