Scores cached jobs against a profile and policy, explaining title, skills, compensation, and location matches plus policy eligibility.
Score every cached job vs profile+policy with a fully explained rationale (title/skills/comp/location) and policy eligibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses what the output contains (per-dimension rationale for title/skills/comp/location plus policy eligibility), but says nothing about whether scores are persisted, whether the call is expensive (it scores every cached job), or what happens when no policy/profile exists.
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?
One dense sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical dimension list is compact and informative rather than wasteful.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does convey the scoring dimensions and eligibility outcome, which covers the essentials of the result. However, it omits prerequisites, mutation/persistence behavior, and cost, which matter for a tool that processes the entire job cache.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned; 'every cached job' actively implies unbounded behavior, leaving the limit parameter's purpose and interaction with the scan scope unexplained. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.
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 gives a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('every cached job') plus the comparison basis (profile+policy), so the operation is identifiable at a glance. It does not name a sibling, but 'cached job' scoring is naturally distinct from search_jobs and the application lifecycle tools.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus search_jobs, or of prerequisites such as having a resume ingested and a policy set (both exist as sibling tools). The agent must infer that it should be run after ingest_resume/set_policy and before prepare_application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.