jobs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: the returned set includes queued, running, and only the last finished jobs, and results are ordered newest first. It omits pagination, result-count limits, and what 'recent' bounds actually are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the returned set, and the sort order with no wasted words.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-annotation read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what the result set contains. The remaining gap is the absence of any bound on 'recent' (count or pagination), which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 (List) and resource (jobs) with scope ('recent jobs: queued, running and the last finished ones') and ordering ('newest first'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling job_status or jobs_cancel, so an agent must infer that this is the aggregate-list view rather than a single-job lookup.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope description — an agent can infer this is for browsing/overview rather than per-job inspection. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and neither job_status (single job) nor jobs_cancel is named as the alternative for those cases.

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