youtube_reporting_list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists active jobs, but does not mention authentication requirements, whether it is read-only, or what an 'active' job means. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire purpose without any filler. It is highly efficient and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a zero-parameter tool. However, it lacks context about output format, authentication, and how it fits into the reporting workflow (e.g., jobs must be created before listing). Given the absent output schema and annotations, this is a clear gap but not severe enough to be inadequate.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids any parameter details, and the empty schema correctly reflects that no arguments are needed.

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 active reporting jobs, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like youtube_reporting_list_types and youtube_reporting_list_reports, which focus on different reporting entities.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to create jobs first, or compare against sibling reporting tools, leaving the agent without directional context.

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