list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the retention scope ('running and recently finished') and the returned fields (state, duration), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for a listing that could be large.

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?

One short sentence with the scope parenthetical front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing parameter and volume guidance.

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 the definition still leaves the sole input parameter undefined and gives no indication of how many jobs come back or whether results are bounded. For a fleet-wide listing tool among 20 siblings, that is a meaningful 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 0% and the single parameter, cluster, is never mentioned in the description. It is ambiguous whether the tool lists jobs across all clusters by default or must be scoped to one — exactly the detail the description should supply.

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 clear resource and scope: enumerates all jobs, both running and recently finished, returning state and duration. That distinguishes it from single-job siblings like job_details or job_timeline, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point before drilling into job_details or diagnose_job. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of finished-vs-historical jobs beyond 'recently finished', and no mention of alternatives.

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