rf_list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool enumerates all jobs run in the current session, which is useful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results include failed jobs, or any other behavioral nuance. The listing behavior itself is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, short sentence that states the tool's scope without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool and is easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list operation, especially with an output schema available. However, it lacks any connection to sibling tools or usage context, so an agent may not know when to choose this over rf_job_status without additional inference.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

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 identifies the resource (jobs) and scope (this server, this session), and the name 'rf_list_jobs' reinforces the listing action. It is understandable and distinct from sibling tools like rf_job_status, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast itself with any sibling.

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. The description implies a historical/session-scoped listing use case, but it does not mention rf_job_status or any other sibling, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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