list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare the tool readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information ('authenticated user's jobs') and implies recency ordering, but it does not go into pagination or response behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 conveys the tool's purpose, user scope, optional filtering, and its place in the job workflow. With an output schema available, return structure does not need to be spelled out. It only lacks explicit pagination semantics and accepted status values, which are conventional gaps rather than deal-breakers.

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 for parameter meaning. It only addresses 'status' as a filter and leaves 'limit' and 'cursor' entirely unexplained, with no status value details. This is inadequate for a tool with three undocumented optional parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clearly bounded resource ('the authenticated user's Jungle Grid jobs'), and an optional filter ('by status'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job, which targets a single job, and list_artifacts/list_job_inputs, which target different resources.

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 explicitly guides when to use it: 'Use this to find recent jobs before checking status, logs, or artifacts.' This gives an agent a clear workflow trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual cue is strong enough.

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