List volume jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does so by explicitly warning that Longhorn does not publish a dedicated input/output schema or docs page for the jobList action. It also offers a concrete workaround: inspect the deployed shape via longhorn_describe_resource_type or pass unreserved fields via extra. It stops short of describing response shape or permissions, but the 'List' verb and schema caveat give substantial transparency.

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 two carefully chosen sentences: the first states exactly what the tool does, and the second delivers a critical caveat and a practical remedy. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most important gap by explaining the missing schema and pointing to a runtime discovery method. It does not spell out the expected return structure, but that is discoverable through the same recommended path and the list-oriented purpose is clear.

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 coverage is 50%: extra has a meaningful description, while name does not. The description adds value by recommending longhorn_describe_resource_type('volume') to determine exact fields and by noting extra can accommodate additional fields, but it does not elaborate on the required name parameter. This is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool but not fully compensating.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb (List), resource (a volume's background async jobs), and the underlying action ('jobList'), making its purpose unambiguous. It is well distinguished from sibling tools like volume_list and volume_recurring_job_list.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this with a volume name to list that volume's background async jobs. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over sibling list tools such as volume_recurring_job_list, and the alternative guidance given (longhorn_describe_resource_type) is about schema discovery rather than tool selection.

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