agda_job_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral filter ('still running or awaiting collection') but does not state whether the call is read-only, what the returned job representation looks like, or whether listing consumes/removes jobs. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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-parameter list operation, the description is complete enough: it identifies the resource and filter condition. It does not explain the output format, but the verb 'List' implies a list of jobs, and the lack of an output schema keeps expectations simple. A minor gap is the absence of explicit detail about what is returned.

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 input schema imposes no burden. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'Agda jobs' and a clear state qualifier ('still running or awaiting collection'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like agda_job_status (single job status) and agda_job_cancel (mutating operation).

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 state qualifier clearly sets expectations: this tool is for discovering active or uncollected jobs, not all jobs or historical results. It does not explicitly name alternatives like agda_job_status for individual job checks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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