List hunt jobs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it only reads /arkime/api/hunts, that it lists both UI-queued and API-queued hunts, that active_only=true never shows finished jobs (so a disappearing hunt is not an error), and that a never-used deployment returns an empty data list as a valid answer. It also mentions the raw response format, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds value: the opening one-liner summarizes purpose, then detailed usage, availability, edge cases, and return format follow logically. It is front-loaded with the core statement and organized into readable segments, though it could be tightened slightly without losing information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to poll, how to cancel via the ID, availability regardless of write classes, the two-list active/history behavior, and the empty-data edge case. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: it explains the semantic split between active and finished hunts for active_only, and warns that pairing a large limit with active_only=false should be deliberate for full history. This enhances the bare schema definitions, moving beyond the baseline.

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 opening sentence states 'List Arkime hunt jobs with their progress, match counts and status.', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and included fields. It also distinguishes this from creating/cancelling hunts and from other list tools by focusing specifically on hunt jobs, so there is no ambiguity against siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to see what packet-payload searches this Arkime is running or has run' and provides concrete scenarios: polling for job completion, reading an `id` before passing to arkime_cancel_hunt, and noting that active_only=true vs false shows separate lists. It also contrasts with create/cancel tools, making when-to-use guidance unambiguous.

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