jumpserver_jobs

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the lower bar applies. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned per-job fields (id, target, command, state, elapsed, buffered bytes), which is the only source of return-shape information since there is no output schema. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the field list tucked into a parenthetical. Every element earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the agent has enough to call it correctly and knows the shape of the response. Only pagination/ordering and any failure conditions are unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical field list appears to describe outputs rather than inputs, which is appropriate given the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (streaming jobs) scoped to 'this conversation', which sharpens it against the pool of job_* siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with jumpserver_job_read or job_start/stop, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 scope phrase 'of this conversation' implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no alternative named (e.g. job_read for a single job's detail). Usage is only implied.

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