list_child_jobs

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

With no annotations available, the description itself signals that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation by using the verb 'List', which implies a collection result. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or whether the listing is limited to immediate children or recursive.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it instantly 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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description gives no details about pagination, returned job fields, or how child jobs relate to other job endpoints. The definition is enough to guess the call, but not enough to know what to expect from the response.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Schema description coverage is only 50%, and page and per_page remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the gap is not compensated for.

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 action ('List'), a specific resource ('child jobs'), and a scope ('of a parent job'), so an agent can understand what it does. It is clear enough to be distinguished from siblings like list_jobs and get_job, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_jobs or list_job_steps, nor any exclusions. The parent-child phrasing implies a use case, but the agent must infer selection logic entirely from context.

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