list_jobs

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description transparently lists all returned fields, including last-run summary and overdue flags. This adequately discloses the read-only behavior and output 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers its functionality and output comprehensively. It could mention it as a read-only operation, but the field list suffices.

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 description adds value by detailing the output fields, compensating for the absence of an output schema. It provides richer semantics than the empty input 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 clearly states the tool enumerates all known cron jobs with a last-run summary, specifying the returned fields (id, name, schedule, last run time + status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_overdue_jobs and find_silent_failures, which target specific subsets.

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?

While the description implies general-purpose enumeration, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_job_status or get_job_runs. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.

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