list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the sorting order (newest first) and that queue status is included, but it does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or whether the result is limited to the current user/workspace.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the resource, the ordering, and the extra queue-status output in just a few 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return information: recent jobs and queue status. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it could optionally clarify the output format.

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 limit parameter is already documented with its default value ('Máximo de jobs (def 20)'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Lista'), resource ('jobs recientes'), and defines ordering ('más nuevos primero') plus the additional queue status output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job (single job) and list_projects/list_compositions (different resources).

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 implies when to use the tool: to see recent jobs and queue status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when needing a specific job's full details (use get_job) or when checking whether a job completed synchronously (use wait_job).

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