jobhound_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It clearly states that jobs above a score threshold are saved with status 'queued' and that a summary plus queued IDs are returned. This gives the agent a good model of the behavior, though it doesn't specify threshold values or idempotency.

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 four concise sentences, each adding value: action, outcome, return value, and next steps. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, return content, and downstream steps. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and process the tool's results.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none; it correctly omits any schema repetition.

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 states a clear multi-step action: fetch jobs from all configured sources, score them, and queue high-scoring ones. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobhound_list or jobhound_get, which are for querying existing 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?

It provides explicit next-step guidance, telling the agent to call jobhound_list('queued') then jobhound_get_for_tailoring(id). This implies jobhound_scan is the entry point for processing new jobs, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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