list_jobs

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: newest-first ordering, pagination defaults (page 1, limit 25, max 200), valid status filter examples, per-entry fields (job id, status, progress, poll URL), and the return envelope (jobs plus total, page, limit, pages). This fully discloses what the tool does and returns, complementing the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 sentences cover the tool's purpose, key parameters, return fields, and alternative routing without redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information. No filler or vague language.

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 list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation details, filtering, pagination, ordering, and the response structure. It also names the workflow for following up on individual jobs, so an agent has all relevant context to call this tool correctly and proceed if needed.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and examples. The description repeats the defaults and maximum limit but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('the organization's async simulation jobs'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from related siblings by explicitly naming get_job_status, poll_job, and get_job_result as alternatives for following a single job, so an agent can clearly identify when this tool is the right one.

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 direct routing guidance: 'Use get_job_status or poll_job to follow one job and get_job_result for its output.' This explicitly tells the agent when to choose alternatives, and the pagination and status filter details clarify how to invoke list_jobs for bulk listing. No exclusions are needed because the sibling routing covers the main alternative.

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