copy_job_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns all copy jobs in a workspace, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, 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 with no filler. The action, resource, and scope are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the description and schema are sufficient for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema or explicit pagination note is a minor gap, but 'List all copy jobs' conveys the expected behavior clearly enough.

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 already documents workspaceId with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It only loosely repeats the workspace scope and provides no additional format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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'), a specific resource ('copy jobs'), and a clear scope ('in a workspace'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like copy_job_get, copy_job_run, and copy_job_list_runs.

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 the enumeration use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention copy_job_get for single-job details or copy_job_list_runs for run history, leaving selection partly to the tool name.

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