danceflow_list_jobs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'retained' hints that results are a stored subset of past jobs rather than live state, which is genuine added context, but the description says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how far back retention goes. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One short sentence, scope first and the alternative second, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause carries information an agent needs to choose this tool or reject it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return contents need not be described, and with one optional parameter the surface is small. Still, the description leaves 'adapter' and 'receipt' undefined and does not clarify how this listing differs in content from danceflow_job_status or danceflow_job_logs, which an agent needs in order to call the right tool.

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 single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no meaning for it beyond its name and default of 50. Because coverage is below 50%, the description was expected to compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('List retained adapter job receipts') and explicitly separates that scope from 'native StemLab jobs', so it is more than a restatement of the name. It falls short of 5 because 'retained adapter job receipts' is unexplained jargon and it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as danceflow_job_status or danceflow_job_logs.

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 supplies an explicit when-not-to-use rule with the alternative named ('native StemLab jobs use stemlab_list_jobs'), which is exactly the routing an agent needs for the adapter vs. native split. It gives no guidance about relationship to the other job-related siblings in the same server (status/logs/cancel), so the surrounding decision space is only partly covered.

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