list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination, which is already evident from the schema parameters. It does not state whether the listing is scoped to the current user, whether it includes child jobs, what ordering is used, or any other runtime behavior an agent needs to predict results.

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 short sentence with no filler words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though the lack of supplementary detail is addressed by other dimensions.

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 description should clarify what a job is, what fields are returned, and how this listing relates to sibling job tools. It omits all of that, so an agent lacking domain knowledge would be unable to confidently invoke it or interpret 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 schema already describes 'type' and 'status' with filter semantics, while 'page' and 'per_page' lack descriptions. The word 'pagination' in the description gives minimal semantic context for those two parameters, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage. However, no detail is added about defaults, bounds, or interaction between filters and pagination.

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 and resource: 'List all jobs', which is an unambiguous read operation on the jobs collection. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_child_jobs', so an agent cannot tell whether this lists top-level jobs, all jobs including children, or jobs visible to the current user.

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 use this tool versus the many job-related siblings such as 'list_child_jobs', 'get_job', or 'list_job_steps'. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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