Request a custom software project from Ruzora's Software Factory. Fixed-price development by senior LATAM engineers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact person name | |
| Yes | Business email | ||
| budget | No | Budget range (USD) | |
| company | Yes | Company name | |
| timeline | No | Desired timeline | |
| description | Yes | What you want built |
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 correctly indicates this is a request/submission operation ('Request a custom software project'), implying data submission but not querying or mutation. However, it doesn't disclose whether the submission triggers an email, creates a CRM record, or requires confirmation, leaving behavior somewhat opaque.
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 short sentences, efficiently stating the purpose and unique value proposition. It is front-loaded with the core verb ('Request'). No extraneous information is present. It could be slightly more concise by merging the sentences, but overall it's well-structured.
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 6-parameter input schema with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. The parameter names and schema descriptions are self-explanatory (name, email, description). However, it omits any mention of response expectations (e.g., what happens after submission) and doesn't address timing or follow-up process, which would be helpful for completeness.
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, so all 6 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable since the schema is already comprehensive. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description's overall purpose context earns a 4.
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 creates an inquiry for a custom software project, specifying it's for Ruzora's Software Factory with fixed-price development by senior LATAM engineers. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'request_demo' or 'submit_candidate_application', which have different purposes.
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 this tool should be used when a user wants to request custom software development, which is distinct from demo requests or hiring inquiries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as 'request_demo' for standard product inquiries.
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 addresses a distinct purpose: factory inquiries, hiring leads, company information, job details, open roles, demos, and candidate applications. There is no ambiguity in their target actions or stakeholders (client vs. candidate).
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_factory_inquiry or list_open_roles. The minor inconsistency is that get_job_details and get_company_info use 'get' while others use 'create', 'list', or 'request', but the pattern is still predictable and clear.
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a recruitment and software services server. Each tool covers a necessary interaction (inquiries, applications, demos, info, role listing) without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: company info, role discovery, applying/inquiring, and demo requests. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations for inquiries or applications, but for this domain those are typically handled out-of-band, so the surface is reasonably complete.
