list_all_jobs

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

Description discloses the output fields but lacks details on error conditions, authentication requirements, or performance implications. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses behavioral transparency.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is meaningful and there is no superfluous content.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. It would benefit from mentioning if the list is paginated or ordered, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no additional parameter information, which is adequate given the zero-parameter schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all Jenkins jobs and specifies the returned attributes (name, URL, last build status). This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from siblings like count_failed_jobs or trigger_build.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it for a full list, there is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like list_recent_failed_jobs.

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