get_app_jobs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get all' implies a read-only operation, and the enumerated fields give a sense of the shape, but there is no mention of result limits, pagination, window-size caps, or permission requirements. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not strictly needed, which keeps this at a middling 3.

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?

Purpose and use case are front-loaded, followed by the returned field list and an Args block. The Args duplication earns its place given 0% schema coverage. Slightly padded by restating field names, but no significant waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it does. For a three-parameter read tool the core is covered, but nothing is said about how large a window is allowed, how many jobs are returned, or whether results are capped — gaps an agent could hit in practice.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all three parameters with types and meaning, including that from_ and to are ISO 8601 datetimes and that app_id is the Scout APM application ID. Format details (ISO 8601) and the aggregation window semantics add real value beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get all background jobs for a given application, plus aggregated performance metrics in a time window. It distinguishes itself from metric-oriented siblings by naming the job-level fields returned (queue, job_id, throughput, latency). It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_job_metrics or get_app_job_traces, but the resource is clear.

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 gives an implied use case: identifying high-throughput, high-latency, or high-error-rate jobs in one call. It does not mention when to prefer get_job_metrics, get_app_job_traces, or get_app_metrics, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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