get_saved_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List'), but does not mention potential side effects (likely none), return format, or any limitations. The description is minimal and provides no information about pagination or data structure.

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 extremely concise with no redundant words. It gets straight to the point, which is ideal for a simple list operation.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details about the output structure, whether results are ordered, or any response format. Since no output schema is provided, the description should at least hint at what fields or structure to expect, but it doesn't.

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 only parameter, 'limit' with a default of 30, is not mentioned in the description. Since the schema coverage is essentially 0% (the description ignores the parameter), the description fails to add value. Although the parameter is self-explanatory, the description could have clarified its purpose (e.g., 'limit the number of results').

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 function: listing previously saved or bookmarked jobs. It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('jobs you've previously saved/bookmarked'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_applied_jobs or get_recommended_jobs.

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 when to use this tool: when the user needs to see their saved jobs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_jobs or get_applied_jobs, though the naming and simple description make the use case obvious.

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