list_upcoming_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists scheduled jobs, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list includes only active schedules. The description is sufficient but not thorough for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence of 12 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 and simple optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return format, whether the results are ordered, or any error conditions. However, for a straightforward list tool with clear schema, it is not severely lacking but could be improved.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the time window concept. Per guidelines, baseline score is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'jobs scheduled to run within a future time window', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_running_jobs, list_completed_jobs, etc. It specifies the temporal scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it's for upcoming scheduled jobs, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools cover other scenarios (e.g., running, completed, failed jobs). This forces the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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