get_asset_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burdens, and it discloses a lot: the engine_error code returned for unregistered sources, the AiCompanion gem 0.6.0+ prerequisite, and secure-mode compatibility. It does not flag that escalate mutates queue ordering or that include_logs truncates logs, but overall the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is tight and well-organized. The return-structure block is somewhat redundant since a consumed output schema already exists, but the overall length is reasonable and every section is legible.

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 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, enum values, and per-parameter semantics. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains source_path accepts a project-relative or full path, escalate moves queued jobs to the front of the queue, and include_logs attaches failed-job logs truncated at 64 KB. All three parameters gain meaning beyond their bare titles.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: listing Asset Processor jobs for one source file, including failure logs. It is clear enough to distinguish from broad siblings like get_asset_processor_status, but it never explicitly names or contrasts 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives such as get_asset_status, wait_for_asset, or get_asset_processor_status. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is the tool for per-file job inspection, and there are no exclusions or preconditions stated beyond a passing gem-version note.

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