list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the workspace scope; it says nothing about ordering (recency implied but unstated), how many jobs are returned by default, whether the list is capped or paginated, or what constitutes a 'manifest'. Significant gaps for a discovery tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, an undocumented limit parameter, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for a tool whose behavior (recency window, result count, ordering) an agent must reason about.

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% and the single parameter (limit, default 20) is never mentioned in the description. The word 'recent' hints at ordering but gives no syntax or meaning for limit, so the description does not compensate 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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('recent task manifests'), enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like create_shell_plate. However it offers no differentiation from the other list_* siblings (list_parts, list_nodes, list_installations), and the name/description resource mismatch ('jobs' vs 'manifests') may slow an agent slightly.

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 word 'recent' implies a temporal scope but there is no statement of when to use this versus read_job (the obvious companion tool) or the other list_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.

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