list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'SQL-based filters' which hints at query capabilities but doesn't disclose specifics like response structure, pagination limits beyond those in schema, or idempotency. For a list tool, the safety profile is implied, but the description is minimal.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines functionality, the second provides usage guidance.

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 tool has 11 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary use cases and differentiates from siblings. It could elaborate on return format or pagination, but for a typical list operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 11 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context about filtering dimensions (status, department, office, dates) but no new details beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'List jobs with SQL-based filters and sorting,' specifying the verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool search_jobs by directing title searches there, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use advice: 'Use this for browsing jobs or filtering by status, department, office, or date ranges.' It also tells when not to use it: 'For title search (partial match supported), use search_jobs instead.' This is model guidance.

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