get_real_device_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states jobs are 'actively running' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or pagination behavior beyond what parameters imply. The 'actively running' scope is communicated but other impacts are missing.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose and parameters. No redundant information; every sentence is necessary.

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?

Overall, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks details on pagination limits, the meaning of 'LIVE' value for type, and how offset interacts with limit. Output schema exists, so return values are not required, but these gaps reduce 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It defines limit (max number), offset (index number, but unclear if zero-based or skip count), and type (manual tests with 'LIVE', but value meaning is ambiguous). While it adds meaning, offset and type descriptions are imprecise.

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 'Get', the resource 'list of jobs', and the scope 'actively running on real devices in the data center'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_specific_real_device_job' (specific job) and 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel' (tunnel-specific).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recent_jobs' or 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel'. The description implies it's for active real-device jobs but does not state when not to use it or provide context about job lifecycle.

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