list_jobs_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'list recent generations'. It omits pagination behavior, default ordering/recency window, what 'official backend' implies, and any auth assumptions for a mutation-adjacent history tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriate. The parenthetical '(history)' is slightly redundant, and 'from the official backend' is filler that adds little actionable meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description should have covered read-only intent and pagination. As written it is too thin for a 2-param listing tool nested among many similar siblings.

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 0%, so both page and page_size are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention paging at all, leaving the agent with no idea that results are paginated or what the defaults (1 / 20) imply.

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?

States a clear verb (List) and resource (recent generations/history), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_status_tool or cancel_job_tool, all of which operate on the same job/generation domain.

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 on when to use this versus get_status_tool (single job) or the other list_* tools. Nothing states prerequisites, that it is read-only, or how to page through results, so the agent must guess.

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