listJobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only running jobs plus a bounded 'recent history' are returned, which is real behavioral context, but it omits retention window, ordering, and pagination/result limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the optional filter clause last. Nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single optional parameter is fully specified. The only gap is the unquantified 'recent history' window and lack of result-volume guidance for a list tool.

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 enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the absent-means-all behavior. The description's 'optionally filtered by state' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('currently-tracked background jobs') and scope ('running and recent history'). It is clearly distinct from the mutation sibling cancelJob, though it never names that relationship 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart to cancelJob, but the description never states when to call it versus alternatives or that it should be paired with cancelJob to find a job ID.

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