list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The single sentence provides no behavioral traits beyond the mere fact of listing.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning its place without being verbose. Minor improvement could be made by front-loading key details.

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?

The description is minimal but covers the basic purpose for a simple list operation. With an output schema present, it is not required to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it only marginally 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 description coverage is 100% as the sole parameter 'limit' has a complete description. The tool description adds no additional meaning; it does not even reference the parameter. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'recent jobs from the Job Execution service.' It defines the tool's scope without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' or 'cancel_job.' The name itself provides sufficient differentiation for a listing tool.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_job_log' or 'get_job_status.' It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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