list_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the action (list) and the active_only filter, and mentions return type. However, it does not confirm idempotency/read-only nature, pagination, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are efficient, though the separation into blocks could be slightly more integrated.

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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), the return description is adequate. However, the tool has only one parameter and no usage context, and lacks guidance on how to interpret results or combine with sibling tools. Overall minimal but functional.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter. The description compensates fully by explaining 'active_only: If True, only show pending/processing jobs', which adds clear semantic meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 'List ETL jobs' which clearly specifies the verb (List) and resource (ETL jobs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status (specific job status) and job (resource manipulation).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among siblings like get_job_status or job.

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