zas_jobs

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: results are ordered newest-first, each entry carries the phase reached and how it ended, returned job_ids are surfaced, and completed jobs retain their results here. It also notes the visibility model (owner sees items with the agent mark/name on every device). It stops short of stating read-only safety, pagination, or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering. The second sentence about owner visibility is the least essential and slightly tangential, but it is short and not padded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important ground: what is listed, ordering, per-item fields, job_id retention, and result persistence. Missing only operational details such as pagination or result-count limits.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no schema-level parameter meaning to add or compensate for.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the sends and Directo transfers this server started'), plus the ordering ('newest first') and the fields surfaced (phase, outcome, job_id). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like zas_send_direct, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary against zas_list_items or zas_status.

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 only implied: 'a finished job keeps its result here' suggests this is where you check the outcome of a prior send, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. zas_status) to route the agent. The final sentence adds context but not selection guidance.

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