match_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it filters out jobs already seen, applied to, or rejected, and relies on saved configurations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with mutation-like implications (tracking seen jobs).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every phrase adds value: first sentence defines action and constraints, second provides clear alternative. No wasted words, efficiently 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and some behavior (filtering), but lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects (e.g., marking jobs as seen). Given the complexity and missing structured data, it should do more to compensate.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (jobHuntId, limit, page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying jobHuntId ties to saved filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get new job matches') and resource ('based on a saved job hunt configuration'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_jobs' (general search) and 'get_job_hunt' (retrieves configuration). It specifies the scope: uses saved filters and excludes already seen/applied/rejected 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to get new job matches based on saved filters') and when to use an alternative ('To change filters, use update_job_hunt first'). It also implies usage context by mentioning it only returns unseen jobs, guiding the agent on appropriate scenarios.

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