list_jobs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: scope ('all known', i.e. no status filtering) and ordering ('newest last'). It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether running vs. completed runs are distinguished, which matters for a potentially unbounded 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 front-loaded clause with zero waste. It is arguably too terse for the confidence it needs to inspire, but no sentence is filler.

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 and there are no parameters, so the bar is low, but the description never defines what a 'job' is relative to the run_* siblings or whether completed/cancelled runs appear. For an enumeration tool that an agent will likely use to discover state before acting, that is a meaningful gap.

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 for the description to clarify; baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema matches the 'all known' framing with no conflicting filtering notions.

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 precisely — 'All known background runs' — which effectively communicates that this enumerates jobs rather than querying one. The implied contrast with job_status is inferable from 'All known', though no sibling is named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives mentioned. An agent must infer on its own that list_jobs is for enumeration while job_status is for a single job, and nothing tells it whether to call this first or after run_notebook.

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