list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds 'recent' and 'durable' but does not explain what 'recent' means (e.g., time window, default limit) or whether the list is sorted. It also omits the limit default of 50 and the queue filter, which are visible in the schema but not elaborated in the description. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key filtering capability. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simple nature.

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 tool has an output schema and only 4 optional, self-explanatory parameters, so the description need not detail return values. However, it fails to mention the queue filter and the limit parameter, and the phrase 'recent' is vague. Given the low complexity, this is a minimally adequate description with clear gaps but not seriously deficient.

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% and the description mentions only two of four parameters (state and host) as filters. It does not mention 'queue' as a filter or explain 'limit' (number of results). While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value and does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for queue and limit.

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 'List recent durable jobs, optionally filtered by state or host' clearly states the operation (list), the resource (durable jobs), and the filtering capability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status (single job) and get_job_logs, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job_status or list_queues. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and siblings. Without exclusions or alternative recommendations, this is minimal guidance.

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