List jobs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of 'running and recently finished', but this conflicts somewhat with the lifecycle parameter which allows other states like 'queued' and 'canceling' – the description implies a fixed subset when the tool actually supports filtering. No contradiction with annotations, but behavioral details like default ordering or limits are absent.

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 sentence with no filler words, making it efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the primary action and scope. Minor deduction for not using the available sentence to clarify the ambiguous 'recently finished'.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is too sparse to fully specify behavior. It doesn't mention default limit, result ordering, whether the response is a list of job summaries or details, or how 'recently finished' is computed. Sibling tools like agy_cancel suggest mutation, but this list tool's interaction with them is not addressed. The annotations cover read-only, but contextual completeness for correct invocation is lacking.

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 description coverage is 60%, with 3 of 5 parameters described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only vaguely aligns with the lifecycle parameter. limit and session_id have no schema descriptions, and the tool description doesn't compensate for these gaps. Baseline 3 due to moderate schema coverage.

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 resource ('jobs') and scopes to 'running and recently finished', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like agy_result or agy_logs, and the meaning of 'recently finished' is ambiguous without a time frame.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agy_cancel or agy_wait. The description only states what it lists, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right tool. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions.

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