jobd_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that only the first state in the array is forwarded to broker (a limitation), explains default behavior (active set), and describes output fields. Lacks mention of sorting or pagination but overall transparent.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, filtering, output description with sibling link, and use cases. Front-loaded with core action. Well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but description lists returned fields (job_id, project, state, etc.) and provides use cases. Mentions a limitation (single state filter). Could mention result ordering or pagination handling, but sufficient for a listing tool given sibling context.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining defaults (active set) and purpose of state/project for filtering past runs. Although schema already describes parameters, the narrative provides context on how to use them effectively.

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?

Clearly states 'List jobs on the broker with per-state counts' and distinguishes from sibling jobd_job_get by noting that tool retrieves full records. Also gives specific use cases like 'what is running/queued right now?'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('answer what is running/queued right now' or 'locate a job id') and directs user to alternative (jobd_job_get) for full records. Also explains how to filter by state or project to find past runs.

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