get_auto_translation_jobs

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—project scope and optional status filtering—but does not mention pagination, output shape, or any status value constraints. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate, especially given the annotations. However, it lacks valid status values or any reference to alternative filtering tools, and with no output schema it does not hint at the response shape or potential pagination.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the status parameter as an optional filter. The description repeats this without adding valid values, formats, or examples, so it does not elevate meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('auto-translation jobs'), and the plural 'jobs' distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_auto_translation_job. It also scopes the tool to a SimpleLocalize project, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 only notes that status filtering is optional. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_auto_translation_job or create_auto_translation_jobs, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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