List jobs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds behavior beyond that by scoping results to 'this server session' and specifying 'newest last' ordering. It does not discuss empty-session behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 a single seven-word sentence that front-loads the complete meaning with no filler. It is as concise as possible for a no-argument list tool.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the core calling semantics: what is listed and in what order. It is slightly incomplete by not referencing job_status for single-job detail, but this is a minor omission.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is empty and the description needs to add no parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 identifies the tool's output as every job in the current server session, with an explicit sort order (newest last). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as job_status (single-job status) and job_cancel (cancellation).

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 implies the tool is for session-wide job enumeration but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with job_status/job_cancel. An agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name and sibling list.

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