hmc_recent_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing return structure ('list of parsed job dicts with at minimum JobID and Status') and ordering behavior ('most recent first'). It also clarifies the limit behavior. This is helpful context beyond the annotation, justifying a 4.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the main action, and adds no fluff. Every sentence contributes: purpose, return format, and usage. This is a model of concise yet informative tool descriptions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only annotation, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and return shape. It doesn't need to explain fields like JobID or Status further because they are presumably in the output schema. It is complete for its complexity.

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 schema lists only 'limit' with a default, but schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's semantics ('up to *limit* entries') directly in the first sentence, giving meaning beyond type/default. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases, but for a single optional param this is sufficient.

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 states the tool 'List recent HMC jobs' with specific ordering ('most recent first') and a limit parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmc_get_job (single job) and hmc_wait_for_job (status polling). It names the resource and the verb precisely.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Useful for auditing recent HMC activity') and mentions categories (power ops, firmware updates, migrations). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context from siblings and the description imply this is the list-jobs entry point. A stronger exclusion might earn 5, but this is above baseline.

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