list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), pagination ('cursor-paginated via starting_after'), and authentication context ('authenticated organisation'). It doesn't describe return format or error behavior, but for a simple list operation these are not critical gaps, and the disclosed traits are genuinely useful.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function and ordering, the second explains pagination and the intended use case. No redundant details, front-loaded with the primary 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 low complexity (two optional params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools that clarify the API landscape, the description is adequate. It could have explicitly mentioned the response shape, but the tool's name and purpose imply a list of job objects. The description covers the key contexts: auth scope, ordering, pagination, and when to use it.

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% with descriptions for both parameters: 'limit' and 'starting_after'. The description adds context about pagination via starting_after and ordering, but this mostly reinforces schema info (e.g., 'Cursor: pass the last job id...'). It does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource pattern: 'List recent jobs' with a clear scope ('for the authenticated organisation') and ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'when you don't have the id to hand,' which contrasts with get_job and implicitly with submit_job.

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 states the use case: 'Useful for inspecting recent submissions when you don't have the id to hand.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of a direct ID-based lookup, and implies it's the correct choice for browsing recent items without a known ID.

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