List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filtering behavior for running jobs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose output structure, ordering, or pagination, though an output schema likely covers some of this. Overall, it adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and includes the optional filter. Perfectly concise.

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 is not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is a simple list operation with one optional filter. The description adequately conveys the core behavior. It could mention that it lists all jobs or that results may be limited, but for a basic listing tool this 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 schema property 'running_only' has no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The tool description clarifies the parameter's meaning via 'optionally only running ones'. This provides the necessary semantics for a simple boolean parameter, though it does not mention the parameter by name or elaborate on edge cases.

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) and resource (background jobs), and adds an optional filter for running ones. It is distinct from siblings like job_status or job_cancel, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention job_status for individual job details or job_wait for waiting on completion. The description leaves the usage context to the agent to infer.

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