jobd_list

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a compact summary with specified fields, defaults to active states, and mentions truncation behavior via the limit parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that listing is a read-only operation or note any side effects, though none are expected. Without annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then explains defaults and filters, lists output fields, and ends with use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key output fields and hints at per-state counts. It specifies filtering options, defaults, and truncation. However, it does not detail where the per-state counts appear in the response or explain potential error conditions. Still, it is largely sufficient 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%, but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies the default state filter ('active set'), explains that passing an empty array yields all states, and notes the limit clamping and truncated field. This adds value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool lists jobs with per-state counts, specifies it defaults to active set, and distinguishes from jobd_status for full records. The verb 'list' and resource 'jobs on the broker' are specific and differentiate from sibling tools like jobd_submit or jobd_cancel.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are provided: monitoring current activity ('what is running / queued right now?') and locating lost job IDs. It also tells when not to use (for full records, use jobd_status) and how to filter for past runs (by state or project). This gives clear context for appropriate invocation.

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