list_autorag_jobs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List jobs'; it doesn't mention pagination, result shape, ordering, permissions, or whether this is a light metadata operation. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing beyond that is disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler; it is short and direct. It does not repeat the parameter descriptions or add redundant context.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the invocation context is thin: an agent knows it needs account_id and rag_id, but doesn't know what 'jobs' means, what fields are returned, or whether results are paginated. For a list tool with zero behavioral annotations, this is borderline sufficient but leaves important gaps.

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 already describes both parameters fully (account_id and rag_id), so the bar is a baseline 3. The description reinforces that rag_id identifies the AutoRAG instance but provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('jobs for an AutoRAG instance'), so an agent can infer this is a collection operation scoped to a specific rag_id. It does not explicitly contrast with get_autorag_job or list_autorag_files, but the resource and verb are unambiguous.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this instead of get_autorag_job (single job) or list_autorag_files (files for the same instance). The only signal is the generic list-vs-get naming convention, which is not stated in the description.

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