circleci_list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral traits. However, it only states the basic function and does not disclose important behaviors like whether the results are paginated, if it is read-only, or any potential side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. While it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, it currently has no wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool (listing jobs) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return format, prerequisites like the workflow must be valid, or any ordering/filtering of jobs.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both parameters (api_key and workflow_id). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List jobs in a CircleCI workflow' clearly states the verb (list), resource (jobs), and context (CircleCI workflow), distinguishing it from sibling tools like circleci_list_pipelines, circleci_list_workflows, and circleci_trigger_pipeline.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use circleci_get_workflow for workflow details or circleci_list_pipelines for pipeline overview. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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