List known jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying that data is local and that per-job progress counters are included, but it does not disclose other behavioral details like result ordering, pagination, or the shape of the returned list.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the important detail about progress counters. No wasted words and no redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what is listed and what counters are included. It would be slightly stronger with a note about how the status filter affects the result, but the schema already documents that parameter.

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%, and the only parameter (status) is fully documented with an enum and default in the schema. The description itself does not mention filtering, so it adds no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('jobs stored locally from jobs_sync'), and names the exact per-job progress counters included in the result. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling jobs_sync, which is presumably the operation that fetches/syncs the jobs.

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 phrase 'stored locally (from jobs_sync)' implies this tool is for inspecting the local synced snapshot rather than triggering a sync, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over jobs_sync or any other sibling. There is no when/if guidance or exclusion of alternatives.

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