list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'all' scope qualifier and no additional behavioral detail such as return format, ordering, or what counts as a scheduled task.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 parameterless read operation with strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'scheduled tasks' refers to in relation to sibling tools like list_timers, and there is no output schema or return-value note to help an agent interpret the result.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing meaningful left for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies.

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 and resource ('List all scheduled tasks') and the word 'all' conveys the unfiltered scope. It is clear enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like schedule_job, cancel_job, and run_job_now, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the potentially overlapping list_timers.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_timers, or when it would be appropriate to rely on it. An agent is left to infer that this is simply the read-only listing operation for scheduled jobs.

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