Quady3D list jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that listing incurs no charge and creates no work, which is real value beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence could be phrased to also carry usage routing.

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?

The tool is simple (read-only list, no output schema), and the description establishes scope and the no-charge guarantee. But with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, an agent has no idea how results are paginated or what a returned job entry looks like, which is the main gap.

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% with three parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails to do so: it never explains what limit, cursor, or the status enum do. The only enum is self-describing, but pagination semantics (page size cap of 100, cursor lifetime) are entirely absent.

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 (list) and resource (this account's API tasks), and the phrase 'for recovery' hints at the use case. It is distinguishable from create_job and get_job, though the wording 'tasks' vs the tool name's 'jobs' creates a small terminology mismatch an agent must reconcile.

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?

'for recovery' implies the scenario (recovering jobs when IDs are lost), and 'Does not generate or charge' implicitly contrasts with create_job. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no statement of when not to use this versus quady3d_get_job or quady3d_list_models.

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