circleci_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result limits, no rate-limit or token-permission context for an open-world API call.

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 short sentence with no padding and the resource scoping front-loaded. It is efficient, though the sparseness pushes more burden onto the schema than necessary.

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 two-parameter read-only list call with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, an agent gets no sense of result shape or volume, which matters for a listing endpoint against an open-world service.

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 100% – both api_key and workflow_id are documented in the schema – so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the token's scope or where a workflow_id comes from, but it is not required to when the schema is this complete.

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 specific verb and resource ('List jobs') scoped to a CircleCI workflow, so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as circleci_list_workflows or circleci_get_workflow, which is the only gap.

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 gives no indication of when to call this versus circleci_get_workflow or circleci_list_workflows, nor any prerequisite such as needing a workflow_id obtained from the workflows listing. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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