get_recent_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Retrieves') and scope ('for the current user'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context (max limit of 100) but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, key parameter details in the second, and usage context in the third. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context, but lacks behavioral details like authentication or response format. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but some gaps remain.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'limit' parameter's purpose ('number of jobs to retrieve'), constraints ('up to a maximum', 'Max is 100'), and default behavior (implied by context). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Retrieves a list'), resource ('most recent jobs run on Sauce Labs'), and scope ('for the current user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_details' (specific job) or 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel' (tunnel-focused) by emphasizing recency and user-specific filtering.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Useful for quickly checking the status of recent test runs'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies usage for recent job status checks without detailing exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'lookup_jobs_in_build'.

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