List Jobs

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains filter case-insensitivity, the limit default and behavior of 0 for unlimited, and the tenant default from environment. This provides useful context that the annotations alone do not cover.

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 extremely concise, with a clear first sentence followed by a bullet-like args list. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with no redundant or filler 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?

The description covers essential functionality and parameter details, and the presence of an output schema handles return value documentation. Minor gaps like ordering or pagination are not disclosed, but for a simple list endpoint with good annotations, the completeness is sufficient.

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 input schema has no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by defining each parameter: tenant default from env, case-insensitive name substring filter, and limit with default 200 and 0 for unlimited. This removes ambiguity that would otherwise exist.

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 'List all jobs in a tenant' with an optional substring filter, using a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job by explicitly covering the plural 'all jobs' and the tenant scope.

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 context ('in a tenant') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools like get_job or list_pipelines. There is no direct mention of exclusions or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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