get-jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that jobs include 'synchronous operation or an asynchronous task' and offers 'a unified view of all operations,' which adds some context about what a job represents. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination behavior beyond the schema's 'paginationToken'), or any rate limits. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('List all jobs matching the given filters'), and the second adds useful context about what a job is. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains what a job is but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (read-only vs. mutation), authentication needs, response format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as detailing the return structure or usage constraints.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'filters' generically, which aligns with parameters like 'authorId', 'type', and 'status', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'List all jobs matching the given filters' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('jobs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on jobs rather than assets, models, or workflows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like 'get-job-id' beyond the listing vs. single retrieval distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-job-id' (for retrieving a single job) or explain when filtering is needed versus other job-related operations. The context is implied through the mention of filters, but no explicit usage scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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