List jobs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. Description adds behavioral details: returns newest first, lists recent jobs for current org. It does not mention return format or pagination limits beyond the limit parameter, but overall adds useful context.

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 sentences: first states action and ordering, second gives context and alternative. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, scope, and tool relationships. Missing details about return fields or pagination beyond limit, but adequate for a list tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully describes both parameters (limit with default/constraints, status with enum). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, hence baseline score of 3.

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 'List recent video jobs' with scope 'for the current organization' and ordering 'newest first'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_job_status' by noting 'start here to discover job IDs; for one job's full detail use get_job_status'.

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?

Description provides clear usage guidance: 'Start here to discover job IDs' and recommends 'get_job_status' for full detail on a single job. This effectively tells when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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