List Quantum Reasoning Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts the annotations do not: results are tenant-scoped ("authenticated tenant's") and returned as paginated metadata. That is a modest addition on top of an already-complete annotation set.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only/scoping constraint front-loaded after the purpose statement. No filler, though the "Use to..." opener is mildly formulaic.

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?

It correctly tells the agent this is a paginated read that mutates nothing, which covers the main risk for a list tool with no output schema. However, with four filter parameters at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to tell what limit/model/status actually do.

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 only 25% — only cursor is documented — and the description mentions nothing about limit, model, or status filters beyond the word "paginated." With low coverage the description should compensate for the undocumented filter parameters but does not.

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 (list) and resource (the tenant's retained Quantum Reasoning Lab jobs and capabilities), scoping it to the authenticated tenant. It is clearly distinct from bee_quantum_reasoning_get/run/remove in intent, though it never names those siblings 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?

"Use to list..." plus "without creating or changing jobs" implicitly steers the agent away from run/remove, but no alternative tool is named and no condition (e.g. looking up a single job by id → bee_quantum_reasoning_get) is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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