list fine tuning jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond these by disclosing live reconciliation against the training backend, best-effort status on backend error, that locally terminal statuses are never resurrected, markup stripping, feature-flag gating (404), read-only/no-spend guarantees, and the fact that scopes are not enforced. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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?

Although the description is long, it is tightly structured: purpose, endpoint/auth scope, return shape, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds necessary information, especially because there is no output schema to carry return-value documentation. The key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent will receive and how the backend behaves. It documents the exact array shape, all notable fields, status enums, deployment statuses, pricing fields, error cases, and live-vs-terminal semantics. The only minor omission is explicit pagination behavior, but for a monitoring list endpoint this is not a significant gap given the complete field-level return specification.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details while focusing on output and behavior.

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 and resource ('List this workspace's fine-tuning jobs'), adds meaningful qualifiers (newest first, live status, progress, output model, price), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_fine_tuning_job, create_fine_tuning_job, and cancel_fine_tuning_job. It also names the exact HTTP endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 frames the intended use case ('for monitoring training from CI or a script') and states the read-only, no-spend nature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it correctly among siblings.

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