jobhound_get_for_tailoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states what is returned (job description and full resume) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not explicitly disclose non-mutation or any side effects. It also gives a precondition for job_id (from list 'queued'). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences and an Args block, all compact and informative. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the return content and the next action. No filler words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear return), the description covers the essential workflow: what it returns, what to do next, and where the ID comes from. The presence of an output schema covers structured return details, so the high-level return summary is sufficient. It could mention error cases but that's a minor gap.

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 only provides the type and required flag for job_id, with no description. The description adds critical meaning: the ID must come from jobhound_list('queued'), which is a significant addition. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource ('everything needed to write a tailored application'), and explicitly returns the job description and full resume. It differentiates from sibling 'jobhound_get' by indicating its role in the tailoring workflow and specifying the returned items.

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?

It provides workflow guidance: after reading, generate a tailored CV and cover letter, then call jobhound_apply_tailored(job_id, tailored_cv, cover_letter). It also tells the user where the job_id comes from (jobhound_list('queued')), which helps select the correct input. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast this with jobhound_get, but the name and context imply the distinction.

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