List Saved Jobs

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: page-termination semantics ('a page shorter than limit is the last'), item size (~0.8k chars), excluded fields (no raw_text or extracted_json), null semantics for best_ats_score when unscored, and ownership/handover flags. This is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and paging rule, then projection contents, then the optional filter and ownership fields. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical field list is long but justified by the absent output schema.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned projection fields, null semantics, and page-boundary behavior, plus ownership metadata. An agent can consume and paginate results correctly without further documentation.

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 carries the burden and does so well: it restates limit default/max, explains offset paging behavior, and gives meaning to without_application. It stops short of documenting edge cases like out-of-range offset, but coverage is strong for three params.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope modifiers: 'List stored jobs as a thin summary array, newest first, paged by limit and offset.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_job ('use get_job for full detail') and implicitly from export_jobs/list_applications.

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?

Clear routing context: use this for slim summaries and get_job when full detail is needed, plus the 'only jobs without an application' filter condition. No explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer export_jobs), so it falls short of a 5.

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