makemkv_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions 'recent' jobs and 'optional status filter,' but doesn't clarify what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, pagination) or other traits like rate limits or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'List recent rip jobs with optional status filter.' It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent) and there's an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks details on usage context, behavioral nuances (e.g., what 'recent' entails), and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, but the description mentions 'optional status filter,' which aligns with the 'status_filter' parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide additional semantic context beyond what's implied. With one parameter documented in the schema and the description adding some value, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List recent rip jobs with optional status filter.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('recent rip jobs'), and scope ('optional status filter'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'makemkv_job_status' or 'makemkv_monitor' that might also provide job-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'makemkv_job_status' (which might get details for a specific job) or 'makemkv_monitor' (which might provide real-time updates), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for listing jobs versus other operations.

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