List volume recurring jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the docs link adds reference context, but the description does not disclose return shape, pagination, or error behavior.

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 information-dense sentence followed by a relevant documentation link. There is no redundancy, 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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description provides enough information to reason about correct invocation. The docs link covers additional operational depth, but an explicit note about the response shape would have made it fully complete.

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 input schema's `name` has no description and 0% schema coverage, so the description's 'attached to a volume' is what maps the sole parameter to a volume identifier. This is clear enough for an agent to populate `name` correctly, though not as explicit as a dedicated parameter comment.

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 specific action ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('recurring jobs attached to a volume'), which distinguishes it from the global recurringjob_list sibling. The title reinforces the same purpose without ambiguity.

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 description implies the usage context by focusing on volume-scoped recurring jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over recurringjob_list or how it relates to volume_recurring_job_add/delete. The Longhorn docs link provides external context but no direct selection guidance.

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