list_jobs

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read; the description adds non-obvious behavioral context that the pagination envelope is unstable and that resources/results/items are checked defensively, which helps an agent interpret the response. However, it says nothing about default page size, cursor semantics, filtering behavior, or error conditions.

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 endpoint is stated up front, which is good front-loading, but the second sentence is long, hedged, and largely meta-commentary about spec ambiguity rather than information that changes how the agent calls the tool. It reads as an internal engineering note rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition should carry substantial weight, but it only speculates about the response envelope. An agent is left without knowledge of filtering behavior, page-size limits, or how to paginate, which are essential for a cursor-paginated list tool.

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% across four parameters, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining them, yet it never mentions limit, cursor, or name_contains. Only project_id is obliquely referenced through the query-string fragment, leaving most inputs undocumented in both places.

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 identifies the underlying endpoint (GET /v2/jobs?project_id=...), which implies listing jobs scoped to a project, but never states the purpose in plain language. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as list_job_runs, get_job, or list_assets, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_job_runs (runs of a job) or get_job (single job), nor any mention of prerequisites, pagination workflow, or how to continue via cursor. Only the required project_id scoping is implied by the URL fragment.

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