jobhound_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool returns a cover letter 'if applied,' which is useful conditional behavior, but it does not describe potential errors, absence of a job, or any side effects. For a read-only getter this is acceptable but still minimal.

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 and front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information: the first states the purpose, the second defines the argument. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the core purpose and param. However, it lacks any mention of how this differs from related tools like get_for_tailoring, and does not address failure modes or return value specifics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the tool's place among siblings is unclear.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description merely restates the schema's type and name ('job_id: integer ID') without adding context about where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints. This adds no value beyond the structured schema.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('full details for a job'), including the conditional inclusion of a cover letter. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like jobhound_list or jobhound_get_for_tailoring.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jobhound_list or jobhound_get_for_tailoring. The description implies use when a specific job_id is available, but does not state exclusions or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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