list_print_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: result ordering, the field set, the full status enum, and the crucial domain distinction between 'done' (printer confirmed cards emerged) and 'unconfirmed' (data sent, no confirmation). It omits that the call is read-only and says nothing about the limit/pagination 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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then the status semantics that actually require explanation. Every sentence earns its place; it is slightly dense around the status enum but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description usefully supplements it with the interpretation of 'done' vs 'unconfirmed', which is the piece an agent most needs to avoid misreporting. The one real hole is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, otherwise the definition is adequate for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions limit, its default of 10, or whether it caps the returned list. For a one-param tool with no schema documentation, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 the resource (print jobs) and the ordering (newest first) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like printer_status or list_printers, though it never names them or uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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?

Usage is implied by the content — this is the tool for reviewing recent print jobs — but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for it versus printer_status or list_printers. It does give one actionable directive ('ask the user to check' for unconfirmed jobs), which is a genuine usage cue.

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