jobhound_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds that the output includes 'database IDs', which is useful for chaining with other tools. However, it does not disclose default behavior (e.g., when status is omitted), pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but this is not stated explicitly.

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 two sentences. The main purpose is stated first, followed by a focused parameter explanation. Every word contributes value; there is no padding 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose, the parameter's allowed values, and the fact that database IDs are included. Missing the default status and explicit usage guidance, but overall adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, and the description compensates by enumerating the allowed status values ('new, queued, applied, failed, interviewing, rejected'). It also explains the parameter's role ('by status'). It does not mention the default value (queued) which is present in the schema but not repeated, and does not clarify if the parameter is optional or required beyond the schema's default.

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 ('List'), the resource ('jobs'), and the specific scope ('by status with their database IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings like jobhound_get (which likely fetches a single job) and jobhound_status (which likely checks a specific status).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools. The only usage context is implied by the phrase 'List jobs by status', which is not differentiated from other listing or status-related tools.

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