jobs_list

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

The description presents a pure enumeration operation ('List background jobs'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool is not guaranteed to be side-effect free. The description offers no explanation of what non-read-only behavior occurs, and no pagination or ordering behavior is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it reads cleanly. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but there is no wasted or redundant text to penalize.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the tool's complexity is low (one optional parameter). However, the limit/pagination semantics and the tension with the non-read-only annotation leave real gaps for correct invocation.

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 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning, range, and pagination implications are undocumented anywhere. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (background jobs) plus a scoping qualifier ('visible inside this server's configured roots'), which is more than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings jobs_status and jobs_cancel, but the verb choice makes the read/enumerate role inferable.

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 phrase 'inside this server's configured roots' implies the context in which listing makes sense, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives jobs_status or jobs_cancel for inspecting or cancelling a specific job.

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