ssh_job_list

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

The description discloses the output format ('Ids and states only') and implies read-only behavior (matching the readOnlyHint annotation). However, it does not mention potential errors, timeouts, or edge cases (e.g., behavior when no jobs exist). The annotation already covers read-only, so the description adds only partial transparency about the response structure but omits failure modes.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the core action and target, then adds clarifications (when to use, output format, alternative tool) without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: it explains the purpose, when to use it, and the output format. It also references ssh_job_output for further details, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or limits, though these may not be critical for this simple list operation. Overall, it is complete for typical usage.

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?

The sole parameter 'profile' has a description ('Machine name') in the schema, achieving 100% schema coverage. Since the schema already provides the semantic meaning, the tool description adds no additional parameter details. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 function: 'Lists the detached jobs on a machine with their state.' The verb 'Lists' is specific, and the resource 'detached jobs' is well-defined. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the use case of not having a job ID and pointing to ssh_job_output for printed output, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context: 'for when an id was not kept' indicates when to use this tool instead of querying a specific job. It also clarifies scope ('jobs with sudo included') and directs users to ssh_job_output for printed output. While it doesn't explicitly list all alternative tools, the guidance is sufficient to decide when to invoke this tool.

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