dts_job_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a basic listing by transparently explaining that a null `fields` value means the schema has not been transcribed, so fields are 'not validated rather than guessed at.' This is a meaningful behavioral caveat that helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and then adds a single valuable caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 this is a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what is listed and an important semantic note about null fields. It could be slightly richer by explicitly stating the expected output form (e.g., a list of type names with field arrays), but it is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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 begins with the specific verb 'List' followed by a precise resource: '.aconf job data types and the fields transcribed for each.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like dts_list_pipelines (pipelines) and dts_create_job (job creation), leaving no ambiguity about what dts_job_types does.

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 usage — if you need to see job data types and their transcribed fields, this is the tool — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple listing tool, the implied context is adequate, yet there is no direct 'use this when' guidance.

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