list_system_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the notion of a queue, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, or how invalid status values are handled; this is reasonable but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and includes the endpoint before parameter details. It contains no filler, though the parameter comments are low-value and could have been richer without harming conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain much more. It lacks valid status values and filter-combination semantics, but the overall context is mostly sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The provided 'id' and 'status' lines mostly restate the parameter names ('Job ID to return', 'Job status to return') and add little detail such as accepted status values, format, or interaction between the two filters.

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 the operation as listing jobs from a queue and gives the exact endpoint path, which makes the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_system_tasks or list_system_searches, 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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions are stated, and no context helps an agent decide between this and other list_* tools. The only hint is the phrase 'List jobs from the queue,' which is an implied purpose rather than actionable usage guidance.

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