lerobot_list_jobs

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists jobs started during the server process, implying an ephemeral scope (not persistent across restarts). This provides useful behavioral context, though it could additionally state that it is read-only or describe the output format.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the tool's purpose and scope without waste.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear purpose, output schema present), the description is fully adequate. It provides the essential information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema coverage of descriptions is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying the precise scope of listing (background jobs started during the server process), which helps the agent understand what will be returned.

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 background jobs started during the MCP server process. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('background jobs'), and the scope ('during this MCP server process') differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on individual jobs or other resources.

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 when to use the tool (to list background jobs started in the current server process). It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (e.g., lerobot_job_status, lerobot_cancel_job) provide implicit differentiation.

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