list_my_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), client-side filtering, defaults (limit 100), output formats, verbose flag, list_type semantics, and raises JobMonitorError on API failure. This is extensive and valuable.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, detailed Args section, Returns/Raises, and an example. It is slightly verbose but every section earns its place, and the front-loaded summary helps.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers parameter semantics, return types based on output, error behavior, and gives usable examples. No significant gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter in detail: app_id, status, limit, output, verbose, and list_type with defaults and behavior. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 it lists jobs with optional filtering, and mentions fetch order. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like job_status or get_results, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 from the title and description (listing jobs), and the parameter details give hints. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives, and no mention of when to prefer this over other job-related tools.

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