list_jobs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful scope context about shared jobs from clients using the same data directory, but omits pagination or limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and scope, with no wasted wording.

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 is adequate for a simple list tool with an output schema and annotations, but it leaves a clear gap around the only parameter and does not mention how this list differs from related job-inspection tools.

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 only parameter is 'limit,' and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain it. Instead, it never mentions the limit parameter, leaving its meaning and default behavior to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List recent jobs.' The added scope 'shared by clients configured with the same data directory' makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as list_job_outputs or get_job.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping condition 'shared by clients configured with the same data directory,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job or list_job_outputs.

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