process_list_bg_jobs

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('list') but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as return format, potential side effects, or whether it requires prior initialization of Textile. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly states the action (list), the resource (background jobs), and the specific scope (spawned and tracked by Textile) without any 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?

While the description states the purpose, it lacks details about the output format or any side effects. For a read-only list operation with no parameters, this might be sufficient, but the absence of any mention of what the returned data looks like is a minor gap. The tool is simple enough that a 3 is reasonable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered and the description needs no parameter explanation. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'background jobs' with the context 'spawned and tracked by Textile'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_list (which likely lists all processes) and process_get_state, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like process_list or process_get_state. It does not mention when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or any conditions that would select this over other list-type tools.

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