agda_job_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: that finished/collected jobs are excluded from the result. It says nothing about ordering, whether job IDs are returned for reuse, or that it is a non-blocking read, which leaves the read semantics only partly covered.

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 with the scope qualifier placed immediately after the resource. Zero filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the point.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should say roughly what each entry contains (at minimum that job IDs are returned so they can be fed to agda_job_status/await). That chaining detail is missing, so the definition is usable but incomplete for an agent orchestrating the job tools.

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 schema declares zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The scope qualifier in the description is the only semantics available, and it is consistent with 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Agda jobs') and narrows scope to jobs that are 'still running or awaiting collection'. That scope filter implicitly separates it from agda_job_status (single-job lookup) and agda_job_await (blocking wait), though neither sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is how you enumerate in-flight jobs before calling agda_job_status, agda_job_await or agda_job_cancel, but the description never says when to prefer one of those siblings instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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