List Sync Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return field list (ID, local store, remote name, etc.), which provides useful context beyond the annotations, especially since no output schema 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 sentences: first states the purpose clearly, second enumerates the return fields. No fluff, no redundant phrasing, and each 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 zero-parameter listing tool, this is complete. It defines what it lists (sync jobs), includes the return array and key fields, and the annotations cover safety and side-effect behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly does not add parameter details, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: 'configured sync jobs that replicate data between PBS servers.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_list_verification_jobs or pbs_list_prune_jobs by focusing on sync jobs.

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 makes it clear this is for listing sync jobs, and the sibling names (e.g., pbs_run_sync_job) help imply when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops 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.