List jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the returned field set, which is mild value, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or result size limits even though limit/offset exist.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the returned-field summary front-loaded ahead of the optional filtering hints. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the safe-read profile. The only real gap is pagination/offset semantics for a list tool, which could matter when result sets are large.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning: it defines 'filter' as a name substring and explains 'state' in terms of the three lifecycle values. 'limit' and 'offset' are left entirely undefined, which is the reason this is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List jobs') and enumerates what each row carries: schedule, enabled/running state, next run, last outcome. It does not distinguish itself from near siblings like cron_list_pools, cron_list_runs, or cron_get_job, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter hints: narrow by name substring or by state. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as cron_get_job for a single job or cron_list_runs for execution history.

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