list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only restates the filter parameters without explaining critical behaviors like which namespace is used when none is specified, whether results are paginated, or what the response shape is. This is insufficient for a read operation with no other safety/behavior metadata.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and key parameters without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the understanding.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It fails to mention default namespace semantics, pagination, or the structure of the returned job list, which are important contextual details for an AI agent reasoning about the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies that 'prefix' refers to job name prefix and 'namespace' is a namespace filter, which adds some meaning beyond bare parameter names. However, it lacks detail on matching semantics (e.g., exact match vs prefix) and default namespace behavior, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 unambiguously states the action ('List') and resource ('Nomad jobs'), and mentions optional filters (name prefix and namespace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job, which fetches a single job, and other job-related tools.

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 clearly implies this tool is for enumerating jobs, and the optional filter context is given. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use get_job for a specific job'), so it lacks explicit exclusions despite having clear context.

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