listJobHistory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is adequate. However, it does not confirm the absence of side effects or mention any potential impact, but given the standard semantics of 'list', this is minimally sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly restructured to also hint at parameters without becoming verbose.

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 that an output schema exists, the return format is covered. However, the description does not explain the parameters or differentiate from sibling tools beyond the term 'archived'. For a simple list tool, the missing parameter guidance leaves the agent underinformed, especially since the schema has no parameter descriptions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for the 'limit' or 'status' parameters. An agent cannot deduce the meaning of these parameters from the description alone, making it very difficult to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'archived (terminal) queue jobs retained across daemon restarts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like listJobs which likely handle current jobs. The specificity of 'archived' and 'retained across daemon restarts' leaves no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 implies the tool is for listing historical or completed jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listJobs or listRuns. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or naming of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the term 'archived'.

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