list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the ordering ('newest first') but does not mention pagination, rate limits, scoping (user vs all jobs), or authentication requirements. It's adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key details. 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks completeness about scope (which jobs?) and presence of pagination. For a simple list tool it's acceptable but not thorough.

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. It adds meaning for the 'state' parameter by listing possible values (pending|running|done|error|cancelled). However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (default 20).

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 action ('List jobs'), the ordering ('newest first'), and an optional filter. This differentiates it from sibling tools (poll, dispatch, cancel, wait) which have different purposes.

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 mentions an optional state filter with enumerated values, giving context for filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though the action is distinct enough that it's implied.

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