shell_list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: results are session-scoped and include both running and finished jobs. However, it omits that this is a non-destructive read operation, whether job IDs from other sessions are visible, or any ordering/limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier ('started this session') and state filter ('running and finished') both earn their 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and state but says nothing about the returned shape—notably whether job identifiers (needed by sibling tools like shell_job_output and shell_job_kill) are included. That gap matters because this tool is the natural entry point to the job-management workflow.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. No ambiguity about inputs is possible.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (background jobs) with explicit scope: jobs started this session, both running and finished. This clearly distinguishes it from shell_job_output/shell_job_wait/shell_job_kill, which imply a known job ID, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 this is a discovery step (to find jobs before using output/wait/kill), but never states when to use it versus the other six shell tools, nor any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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