list_pa_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it lists jobs and schedules. It does not disclose default pagination (limit=25), sorting order, or any side effects.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, communicating the core purpose immediately. It avoids fluff, but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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?

With three optional parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return format, default values, or the nature of 'schedules'. It is incomplete for a tool that might return a list with scheduling details.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (active, query, limit) having descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists Performance Analytics data collection jobs and their schedules. It uses a specific verb 'List' and a resource, which is enough to indicate the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_pa_job' or 'list_job_run_history', though the naming convention implies a listing action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pa_job' for a specific job or 'list_job_run_history' for job execution history. No prerequisites or context about when to apply filters are mentioned.

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