List marked jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, defines the set of items returned, and adds the 'newest first' ordering behavior. It does not discuss pagination, errors, or auth, but for a simple list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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. Every element adds value: the action, the filtered scope, and the ordering. 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 simple two-parameter list tool, the description covers core selection and invocation needs: what is listed, the filter values, and the ordering. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of the returned roles, and it offers no sibling differentiation or limit semantics. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 50%: the 'mark' parameter is well documented in the schema with 'Omit to list both', and the description reinforces the applied/ignored meanings. The 'limit' parameter has no semantic description in the schema or tool description beyond its name and constraints, so the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('roles recorded as applied or ignored'), directly matching the tool's purpose. It also adds the 'newest first' ordering, making the behavior clear. The mark filter distinguishes this from sibling list-like tools such as get-follow-ups.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to list roles marked as applied or ignored. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be preferred instead, such as get-follow-ups or search-related tools.

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