flow_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and adds scope ('known to this server') and recency ('recent'), but it does not clarify recency limits, ordering, or whether listed jobs are active, completed, or historical. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the action, resource, scope, and recency without wasted words.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete: a model knows what action to invoke and what domain it covers. The main gap is the absence of any pointer to related job-lifecycle tools, which would help with navigation, but that is not essential for a simple list operation.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description therefore cannot add parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('recent Flow jobs'), and a scope ('known to this server'). It is easy to tell this apart from sibling tools like flow_status or flow_log_tail because it is about enumerating jobs rather than inspecting a specific job, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as run_flow, flow_status, or flow_cancel. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical flow, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the intended usage from the tool name and the verb 'List'.

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