list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and discloses the inbox directory as the source, but it does not state ordering, pagination/truncation behavior, what "recent" means, or whether access permissions are required. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves material behavioral questions unanswered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain filtering, ordering, and what a job listing contains. It gives only a source directory and a vague recency claim, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The limit cap of 100 and the state enum (running/completed/cancelled/error/unknown) are left entirely to the schema, with no explanation of their meaning or effect. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 provides a clear verb and resource ("List recent scan jobs") plus a scope ("from the inbox directory"). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like start_scan_job, get_job_status, and cancel_job, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The word "recent" is vague but the core purpose is understandable.

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 siblings such as get_job_status or get_manifest, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase "recent" hints at a time-based context, but it is not defined or actionable. An agent must infer the use case entirely.

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