jb_list_searches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that saved searches are stable and re-runnable (reassuring the agent that reuse is safe), and that it defaults to the configured project. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the raw schema. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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: the first states the purpose and output, the second adds context and default behavior. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, the stability, and the default. It could mention whether an empty list is returned when none exist, but that is minor. It doesn't need to explain return values since it already says 'searchId + name'. Missing details are negligible.

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 already describes projectId as optional and as a URL or ID (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating it defaults to the configured project, which is not in the schema. That's meaningful extra guidance for when an agent can omit the parameter.

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), the resource (saved searches on a Juicebox project), and the output (searchId + name). It also situates the tool as an entry point for pulling existing sourcing work, distinguishing it from siblings like jb_run_search or jb_get_results without needing to inspect them.

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?

It says this is the entry point for pulling existing sourcing work, implying you should use this before running or fetching results. It also notes the default-project behavior, which helps an agent decide when explicitly passing projectId is unnecessary. It doesn't explicitly say 'don't use this if you want results' or name alternatives, but the use case is implied clearly enough.

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