list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that jobs are 'submitted by this server process' and lists the returned fields, which is useful. It does not disclose behavior like whether active_only defaults to false, pagination, or ordering, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key output fields. No wasted words.

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 one optional boolean parameter and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the meaning of active_only or the return format beyond field names, and there is no output schema. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, but the description could be more complete by noting the default behavior of active_only.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'active_only'. The description does not mention active_only at all, leaving its meaning to the schema (which only says it's a boolean). Since there is only one parameter and its name is fairly self-explanatory, the gap is moderate, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('jobs submitted by this server process') and includes the fields returned (id, op, status, progress). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like job_status or job_wait, which are also job-related.

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 implies usage: it lists jobs submitted by this server process, which suggests it is for viewing jobs from the current process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like job_status (for a specific job) or job_wait (to wait for completion). The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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