katto_list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the 'Read-only' label adds no new safety info. However, the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, cursor-based pagination mechanics, the optional status filter, and the exact response shape.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the most important facts (read-only, list recent jobs, ordering) and compactly covering pagination, filtering, and return shape. No filler or redundant elaboration; every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with no required parameters, a full output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: ordering, pagination contract, filter option, and return structure. Missing details like full status enums or rate limits are minor and covered by examples and schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining the pagination flow ('pass the previous next_cursor') and noting status is optional, but it mostly paraphrases the schema rather than revealing new parameter semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('your recent jobs'), with ordering ('newest first'), and is clearly distinct from siblings like katto_get_job, which suggests retrieving a single job. It also names the read-only nature upfront, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear usage context: list recent jobs, paginate using cursor, optionally filter by status. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like katto_get_job or katto_cancel_job, but the listing scope and optional filter are enough to guide selection in most cases.

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