The security companies with the most open cybersecurity roles right now (objective open-roles ranking with remote share and pay-transparency rate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5, hard cap 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'objective open-roles ranking with remote share and pay-transparency rate' but does not disclose traits like data freshness, ordering, or any limitations.
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?
Single, concise sentence with all key information front-loaded. No filler words.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, description adequately specifies what the tool returns. Could include more detail on field names or format, but sufficient for understanding.
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% for the single parameter 'limit', which is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists security companies with the most open cybersecurity roles, providing a ranking with remote share and pay-transparency rate. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job (individual jobs) and market_stats (general market stats).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives compared to siblings. The context of 'objective open-roles ranking' implies usage for rankings, but no clear exclusion criteria.
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: get_job for a single job, market_stats for aggregate stats, salary_benchmark for salary data, search_jobs for searching, and top_employers for company rankings. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores pattern (e.g., get_job, market_stats, salary_benchmark, search_jobs, top_employers). No mixing of conventions.
5 tools is well-scoped for a job board server: covers retrieval, search, statistics, benchmarks, and employer rankings without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers core job board functionality (search, detail, stats, salary info, top employers). Minor gap: no explicit list_all tool, but search_jobs with broad criteria and a full-list URL effectively covers that.