ghidriff_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the name — that the job list persists across server restarts — but discloses nothing else about the operation, such as whether it is strictly read-only, any pagination behavior, or rate limits. The persistence fact is valuable but the disclosure is thin.

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 zero waste: it packs the object scope, server scope, ordering, and persistence into 9 words. Every element earns its place, and the most decision-relevant trait ('survives restarts') is placed at the end as a parenthetical without bloating the core statement.

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 low-complexity list tool with 0 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, ordering, and persistence semantics. The notable gap is the unresolved differentiation from ghidriff_list_runs, which an agent may need to select the correct tool, but this is a minor omission given the output schema and complete parameter docs.

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 schema fully documents both 'limit' (max jobs returned) and 'status' (filter values queued/running/succeeded/failed/cancelled/timeout). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('diff jobs known to this server'), with ordering ('newest first') and a persistence qualifier ('survives restarts'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular job_* siblings and from ghidriff_list_runs by emphasizing server-local persistent state, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the 'List' verb, and the relationship to the similarly-purposed ghidriff_list_runs and the job_* tools is left for the agent to infer.

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