List job states (status / last result / next run)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'return the live state' implying a read-only operation, lists the returned fields, and mentions 'fastest way' indicating performance optimization. It does not disclose any side effects or permissions needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the key return fields, and the second adds a practical use case. No redundant words.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return fields and use case. However, it could mention the output structure (array vs object) or any pagination behavior.

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 100% with a single optional parameter (nameFilter) described as case-insensitive substring match. The description does not add any additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns live state of jobs with specific fields like status, last result, last run time, next scheduled run, and progress. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's the fastest way to answer 'what is failing?' or 'what is running right now?'.

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 gives explicit context for use: 'fastest way to answer what is failing or running right now.' This implies when to use it for live state checks, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives like list_jobs or get_job.

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