toast_list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it lists all job positions. It does not mention authentication needs, pagination, return format, or behavior when restaurantGuid is not supplied. The word 'all' adds some scoping but not enough.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description leaves restaurantGuid semantically undefined and provides no guidance about optional invocation or relationship to sibling tools. Without an output schema, the agent also gets no return-value expectations. The description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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 only parameter, restaurantGuid, has an empty schema description (0% coverage). The phrase 'at a restaurant' weakly alludes to the parameter's meaning, but the description does not explain the parameter's format, optionality implications, or how it affects results. The schema provides nothing, and the description compensates only minimally.

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 a clear verb-object structure: 'List all job positions at a restaurant.' It names the resource (job positions) and scope (restaurant), and the plural 'all' distinguishes it from the singular toast_get_job sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like toast_get_job or toast_search_employees. It also does not explain what happens when restaurantGuid is omitted or when restaurant context is needed.

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