list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates an enumeration operation with the word 'List' and scopes it to what the engine knows, which implies this is a read-only listing of run directories. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, ordering, pagination, or any engine-specific constraints, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'List all jobs (run directories) known to the engine.' Every word contributes meaning, and the parenthetical clarification is placed directly after the noun it explains. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential scope: all jobs, defined as run directories, known to the engine. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The main missing element is guidance about how this relates to sibling tools, but that is captured under usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not a burden. The description adds useful context by explaining that 'jobs' are 'run directories,' which helps an agent interpret the resource being listed even though no inputs are required. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all jobs (run directories) known to the engine.' It clarifies that jobs are run directories and that the tool enumerates all of them. It does not explicitly call out a sibling alternative, so it lacks a deliberate differentiation statement, but 'all jobs' versus siblings like get_job_status implies a broad enumeration rather than a targeted lookup.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_job_status, read_job_file, or sweep_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or a 'when not to use' condition. The only implied context is that listing all jobs is the tool's purpose, which is not enough to support a naming decision among related tools.

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