List JobBOSS2 records

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by documenting the filter grammar and operator set, and by noting offset paging. Since readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover the safety profile, the description does not need to restate those traits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary operation stated first and the essential filter grammar in a follow-up sentence. No sentence is wasted, and the structure makes the most material information easy to scan.

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 names the main capabilities and the output schema covers return shape, but the tool is a generic, highly parameterized list endpoint with a large resource enum. It does not direct the agent to jobboss2_describe_resource for resource-specific field definitions, nor does it clarify when list should be preferred over get. This is adequate for basic invocation but not fully robust for correct tool selection.

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%, but the description does add value by explaining the field[operator] filter syntax and the available operators, and by tying skip/take to offset paging. However, it does not fully define parameter behavior: sort prefix conventions, field sourcing, take limits, and filter value semantics are left mostly to schema inference.

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 verb 'List' and a JobBOSS2 resource, and the schema's resource enum makes the target explicit. It communicates the key capability areas (fields, filters, sorting, paging) but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like jobboss2_get or jobboss2_describe_resource.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this list tool versus the get, describe_resource, or report siblings. The description implies broad list usage but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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