wafle_ai_jobs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool is paginated and filterable, but does not go beyond that with details like response format, ordering, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich, matching the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 of useful information with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers filters and usage examples. Every word adds value.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description is solid. It states the resource, filters, and typical use cases. It does not describe the return fields or sorting, which a dedicated output schema would normally cover, but in its absence the description could be slightly more detailed. However, the tool name and filter list give enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (page, slug, per_page have descriptions; status, job_type, user_review only have enums). The description explicitly names all three filter parameters and provides a concrete use case ('pending review' queue, which maps to user_review=pending), adding meaning beyond the bare enums. It does not explain each enum value, but the enums are self-explanatory.

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 'Paginated list of AI jobs for a store' with a specific verb (list), resource (AI jobs), and scope (store). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wafle_ai_jobs_get (singular fetch) and wafle_ai_jobs_accept/reject/edit (mutations), and the filtering by job_type, status, or user_review further differentiates it.

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 clear context for when to use: 'Use to surface a pending review queue or to find a specific recent job.' It implies use cases but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use wafle_ai_jobs_get for a single job), so it falls short of a full 5 but is still strong.

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