List asset jobs

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

Even though readOnlyHint is true, the description adds critical context: 'fully local: no network call, no credits' and 'does not refresh provider state.' These details about cost, network access, and side effects go well beyond the annotation and help an agent gauge operational impact.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second adds local/no-network/no-credit detail, and the third clarifies the exception. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 list tool with optional parameters, the description covers purpose, sorting, side-effect caveats, and the alternative tool. It does not describe the return structure or pagination, but the schema provides limit bounds and the tool's simplicity reduces the need. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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?

The description does not mention either parameter (limit or status). Schema coverage is only 50% (status has a description, limit does not), and the description does not compensate by explaining limit's role or the enum's purpose. An agent must rely on the parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for a low-coverage 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('local asset jobs'), adds a sorting guarantee ('newest first'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_asset_job by noting it does not refresh provider state. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous against a large sibling set.

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?

It provides an explicit exclusion: 'Does not refresh provider state' and directly names the alternative 'use get_asset_job for that.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose a different tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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