List plugin jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds the authorization class and endpoint, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, pagination, or content of results). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal extra value beyond structured data.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise. However, it is terse and lacks explanatory detail that would benefit the agent. It is not overly verbose, but it could include more value without being wordy.

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 has a simple input (pluginId only), annotations covering read safety, and an output schema (context signal), the description provides the minimum necessary information. However, it omits context about what 'jobs' are in this domain, how many jobs might be returned, or any constraints. It is adequate but not complete for a rich understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided within the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning to the single parameter (pluginId beyond its type. The agent gets no guidance on what values are valid or what the parameter represents.

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 action 'List' and resource 'plugin jobs', and provides the API endpoint and authorization class. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins or pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id, but the name and title make the purpose reasonably 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. It only states the basic operation.

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