list_jobs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (JSON with id, name, status, location) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. As a listing operation, it is likely safe, but not explicitly confirmed.

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?

The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. No redundant information, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format and all parameters. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, and no examples.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (limit, offset, status) with defaults and purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds value beyond the schema. However, it could provide examples or constraints for the status parameter.

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 clearly states it lists jobs/positions from Crelate, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('jobs/positions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job' (single job) and 'get_job_count' (count).

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but the description itself does not provide exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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