get_applied_jobs

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, and it fails to do so. Given sibling tools naukri_login and naukri_session_status, this tool presumably depends on an active session — a critical behavioral detail the description omits. It also doesn't mention pagination, which is odd given the 'limit' parameter suggests it's a list endpoint.

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 7-word sentence that front-loads the action verb 'List.' Every word earns its place, and there's zero fluff. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of excluding useful context (session requirements, pagination notes) that could have been added without hurting conciseness.

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 tool with only 1 param, no annotations, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description should compensate for structured gaps, but it doesn't. Missing context includes session/auth requirements (critical given login-related siblings), return format, and a note distinguishing 'applied' from 'saved' jobs. The agent is left with potentially costly ambiguity when choosing between this and get_saved_jobs.

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 0% with one integer parameter (limit, default 30). The description provides zero compensation for the schema's silence — it doesn't mention that limit controls page size or how the default behaves. Since there is 1 param, the 0-param baseline (4) doesn't apply, and the description adds no help.

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 + resource pairing: 'List jobs you've already applied to.' It's clearly scoped and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the very close sibling get_saved_jobs, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between 'applied' and 'saved' jobs without naming the alternative.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like search_jobs, get_saved_jobs, or get_recommended_jobs. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in), no exclusions, and no mention of when this might not be the right tool. The use case is only weakly implied by the name and description.

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