list_recent_jobs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it uses a local SQLite cache, stores only specific fields, and explicitly lists what is never stored. This manages expectations about data completeness and scope.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and immediately follow with important caveats. 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?

For a read-only listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned and what is excluded. Minor gap: missing details on ordering or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but still sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'limit' parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema already suffices. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool lists jobs from the local SQLite cache, specifying exact fields stored (job_id, source kind, status, duration, created-at) and explicitly what is not stored (URLs, file paths, transcripts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcript or transcribe_file.

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 provides clear context that this only lists jobs from the local machine, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools for different needs.

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