list_jars

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that entry classes are included in results, and says nothing about scope — 'the cluster' (singular) is ambiguous against an optional cluster parameter and openWorldHint=true, leaving cross-cluster aggregation behavior undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise and lacks a leading verb to anchor the reader.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with an optional targeting parameter and openWorldHint=true the description should clarify scope and typical use. Neither is present, leaving the agent with the name alone.

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% for the single optional 'cluster' parameter, and the description never mentions it. It neither says what omitting cluster does (default cluster? all clusters?) nor what format cluster takes, so the one parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 is a noun phrase ('JAR files uploaded to the cluster with their entry classes') that identifies the resource and an extra field, but supplies no verb — the listing action is only inferred from the tool name. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_clusters or list_jobs by resource, but only barely.

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 call this versus alternatives (e.g. cluster_config, list_flink_deployments) or what prerequisite context it serves. The agent must guess that this is for inspecting uploaded artifacts before submitting a job.

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