jobs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's mention of cancel is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful context that large results are kept out of the context window, but it does not distinguish read-only actions (list/status) from the destructive one (cancel) or warn that cancellation is irreversible.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the three supported operations and appends the one non-obvious behavioral note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 is low-complexity with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the essentials of what it does and why results are withheld. It still leaves gaps on parameter conditioning and on what the list/status responses contain, which matters given the destructive hint.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It implies that jobId applies to status and cancel but never states this, nor whether jobId is omitted for list, nor what form a job identifier takes.

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 names three concrete operations (list jobs, check status, cancel long tasks) that map directly onto the action enum, so an agent knows the resource and the verbs. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (apk, dex, frida, etc.) are unrelated domains, so that omission is minor.

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 through the 'long tasks' framing and the note that large results are not pushed into context, which signals when this tool is preferable to pulling full output. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement that list is the default entry point, and no indication of which action requires which parameter.

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