List Jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it: it says 'List all jobs' while the schema caps results at a default limit of 50, so the description arguably misleads about completeness. Nothing about pagination, result ordering, permissions, or truncation is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the required parameter's role comes before the optional filter. It is efficiently sized for what it attempts, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a 3-parameter list tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing limit/pagination behavior leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain output_dir and the status filter, but says nothing about the limit parameter and its default of 50 — an omission that matters because it directly contradicts the 'all jobs' framing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all jobs') plus its scope ('for a given output directory'), which is enough to separate it from get_job_status and get_job_log. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by status' hints at a use case but gives no when-to-use criteria and never mentions the obvious alternatives (get_job_status, get_job_log) that an agent must choose between in this crowded job-related sibling set. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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