Emerging Tech Center — AI Agent Gig Board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a submission/application action (implying a write operation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate applications, what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or any rate limits. The description mentions 'for paid gigs' for wallet address but doesn't clarify if this tool handles both paid and unpaid gigs or if there are different behaviors.

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 appropriately concise at one sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and parameters. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('Submit an application for a gig') and then lists the parameters. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could potentially benefit from a second sentence about behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after submission (success/failure responses, confirmation mechanisms), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context about the application process. Given the complexity of a submission tool and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by grouping parameters into required vs optional categories and providing context about wallet addresses being 'for paid gigs.' However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Submit an application') and resource ('for a gig'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_gig, list_gigs, search_gigs), which are read-only operations while this is a write operation. The description could be more specific about this being a mutation tool versus the siblings' query functions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a gig ID from get_gig or list_gigs first), nor does it explain when this tool is appropriate versus when other tools should be used. There's no context about application limits, timing constraints, or relationship to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (e.g., compensation, how to apply), which adds useful context beyond basic retrieval. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details for a specific gig by ID') and follows with specific details, making every part of the sentence earn its place.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the types of details returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, without annotations and with no mention of error cases or behavioral constraints, there are minor gaps in completeness for a read 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'gigId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain format constraints or provide examples beyond the schema's 'e.g., "content-researcher"'). Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific gig by ID'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it retrieves comprehensive details for a single gig rather than listing or searching multiple gigs. It explicitly lists the types of details included (description, responsibilities, qualifications, compensation, and how to apply), which enhances clarity.

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 context by specifying 'by ID' and listing the detailed fields returned, suggesting it should be used when detailed information about a specific known gig is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_gigs' or 'search_gigs', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format (gig titles, types, compensation, IDs) and implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, which would be beneficial even for a simple tool, preventing a perfect score.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 states the specific action ('List all open gigs') and resource ('at the Emerging Tech Center'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_gig' and 'search_gigs'. It explicitly mentions what information is returned (titles, types, compensation, IDs), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_gig for full details on a specific gig.' This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation, offering clear context for when this tool is appropriate (listing all open gigs) and when to choose an alternative (for detailed information on a specific gig).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'Returns matching gigs with summaries,' which gives basic output information. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), any rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating input and output details, but it's efficiently written.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and output format ('Returns matching gigs with summaries'), but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. For a simple search tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema ('type' with enum/description, 'keyword' with description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'type (paid/volunteer)' and 'keyword' but doesn't provide additional context like search logic (e.g., partial matches) or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search gigs by type (paid/volunteer) or keyword' specifies the verb (search) and resource (gigs). It distinguishes from 'list_gigs' by mentioning filtering capabilities, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_gig' (which likely retrieves a specific gig). The description is specific but could be more precise about 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?

The description implies usage through its filtering parameters (type/keyword), suggesting this tool is for filtered searches rather than listing all gigs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'list_gigs' (which might return all gigs without filtering) or 'get_gig' (for specific gig retrieval). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied.

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