list-jobs-toolList the most recently published Hosco jobs, paginated. Use this when no semantic search is needed — for natural-language search, use the search jobs tool instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (1–50, default 10). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about ordering ('most recently published') and pagination, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.
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 primary action, and every word earns its place. It avoids fluff and clearly communicates the tool's function and when to use it.
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, the annotations covering safety, and the schema covering parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical information is missing.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both limit and offset. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Hosco jobs') with a clear scope ('most recently published, paginated'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by explicitly noting the difference, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when no semantic search is needed') and directs users to the alternative ('use the search jobs tool instead') for natural-language queries. This is clear, actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list for recent jobs, search for ranked semantic matches, and details for full job information. The descriptions explicitly clarify when to use list vs search, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a predictable pattern with a '-tool' suffix, but 'job-details-tool' uses a noun-noun structure while the others use verb-noun. This minor inconsistency is easy to parse and still readable.
With only 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a job discovery server. It covers the essential retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat, though slightly on the lower end.
The core workflow of list/search then get details is fully covered. Potential gaps like applying or filtering by specific attributes are not needed for the apparent read-only job board purpose, so no significant dead ends.