list_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the job categories covered and the 'newest first' ordering. It says nothing about whether the list is paginated via cursor or how far back it reaches, which matters for a listing 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying examples and ordering kept as parenthetical. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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-value detail is not required. However, the undocumented cursor parameter and the absence of any routing versus get_job leave the definition thin for a paginated listing tool in a large sibling set.

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 coverage is 50%: active_only is documented in the schema, while cursor is undocumented in both places. The description's 'newest first' hints at ordering but gives no guidance on cursor-based paging or what active_only changes in ordering/result set, so it compensates only partially for the gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List this account's background jobs') and clarifies scope with examples (offline downloads, archive extractions) plus ordering ('newest first'). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_job, which fetches a single job, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'List' – an agent can infer this is for browsing job history rather than fetching one job. There is no explicit statement of when to use this vs get_job, no mention of when to prefer waiting on a job, and no exclusions.

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