tealkit_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. 'Lists' implies a non-destructive read, and it usefully discloses that all three job states are returned, but there is nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or permissions. Modest value beyond what the name already conveys.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundancy. Every clause (resource, server scope, the three job states) contributes information.

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?

For a zero-argument, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential distinction (which job categories are returned). It would be stronger if it sketched the fields in a job entry or its ordering, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to expand on; the 4 baseline applies. Schema coverage of 100% is trivially satisfied by an empty object.

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?

Names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (background jobs on the TealKit server), and enumerates the three job states covered (configured, scheduled, running). That is enough for an agent to identify the tool, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling tealkit_get_job_status, which is the natural source of confusion.

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 only implied: the tool is obviously the enumeration counterpart to get_job_status, but the description never states when to reach for this versus that sibling, nor any preconditions or exclusions. It is adequate for a zero-parameter list but leaves routing to inference.

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