List recurring 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 disclosing behavior. It only repeats the verb 'List' and adds a docs link; it does not state scope, response format, or any side effects. The behavior is implicitly a read operation, but nothing explicit is added beyond the name.

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?

One sentence that leads with the verb and object, followed by a single relevant documentation link. No fluff, no redundancy, and it is instantly parseable.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the resource and provides external docs. However, it does not distinguish from volume_recurring_job_list or clarify whether it returns all jobs cluster-wide, and since there is no output schema, a bit more context on the return value would help.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary param details.

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+resource pair: 'List Longhorn recurring jobs.' This is direct and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling volume_recurring_job_list, which also deals with recurring jobs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives such as recurringjob_get or volume_recurring_job_list. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or mention of the read-only nature relative to mutation tools.

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