jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the default filtering behavior and the returned fields (label, status, last report lines). It does not state ordering, result limits/pagination, how many 'report lines' are included, or whether inaccessible jobs are silently omitted — meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the parameter effect. The trailing definition of a job is mildly encyclopedic but cheap and does aid an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents and the default-vs-all scope well enough to call correctly. It would be stronger with ordering, result-count limits, and confirmation of what 'last report lines' means in practice.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'all' parameter is already documented in the schema as including completed jobs from the last 7 days; the description restates roughly the same meaning, adding only the framing of it as an opt-in expansion. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (jobs) and what is returned: label, status, and last report lines, plus a definition of a job as one execution of a plan/task tracked by id. The listing verb is only implied, and the distinction from the singular sibling 'job' is left to inference, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'all=true' clause implies the default view excludes jobs completed more than 7 days ago, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus 'job' (single-job detail) or 'find_tasks', and no exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance is only implied.

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