list_runner_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and endpoint. It does not mention that jobs are paginated, supports sorting/filtering, requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. This is a minimal disclosure with significant gaps.

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 unnecessary words, and the parenthetical API endpoint is a useful reference. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse; adding a short clause about parameters or filters would improve value without sacrificing 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't even hint at pagination, filtering, or the nature of the returned jobs, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 7 parameters and zero schema description coverage, but the description provides no information about any parameter beyond the implicit runner_id in the endpoint. It gives no meaning to page, sort, status, order_by, per_page, or system_id, leaving users completely undocumented.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('jobs'), and scope ('by a runner'), and includes the REST endpoint for clarification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runners or get_job_trace, though it could be more explicit about the full scope (e.g., all jobs, filtered by 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer list_pipelines for pipeline jobs or get_job_trace for a specific job's log. It fails to mention any exclusions or context for expected use.

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